The ICC and speed

[Deggesty]

Since I began reading these forums, I have seen some references to the ICC’s ruling on speeds. Today, I had occasion to go into my archive of Trains, and I found the August 1947 issue, (No, I was not a subscriber then; I did not discover the magazine until April of 1952, when I found a copy on a newsstand, bought it, and then managed to scrape together the $3.00 for my first year’s subscription, Later, I was able to buy some back issues, and a friend, to whom I had introduced the magazine, gave me some that he had bought.) which has Al Kalmbach’s report on the ruling.

Basically, the ICC was unhappy with passenger speeds in excess of 60 mph and freight speeds in excess of 50 mph if there were no block protection, either manual or automatic. If there were either a manual or automatic block system, the ICC allowed speeds up to 80 mph (I remember seeing, in another place that freight operation was then limited to 60 mph). If automatic train stop, automatic train control, or cab signals were in use, the ICC set no limit.

This order quickly affected the schedules of many trains. The IC, for example, had to add about an hour to the schedule of the City of New Orleans. Other roads, such as the Southern (which had 2716.8 miles of line with ATS) had to make little if any change in its schedules. Indeed, the Southern did not have a great deal of other track that allowed for faster than 60 mph. The ACL’s New York-Florida trains also had good protection as far south as Florence, S. C.–cab signals New York to Washington on the PRR, ATS or ATC Washington to Richmond on the RF&P, and ATS or ATC on the ACL Richmond to Florence (grampaw pettibone may be able to fill us in on this).

The roads were given until the end of 1952 to add signaling, adding a certain percentage each year, and they were to add at least 25% or 100 miles, whichever was greater, by the end of 1947. Apparently, the IC chose not to add but to lengthen the City of New Orleans’s schedule.

Some r

[BaltACD]

Some roads made no change; for instance, the ACL never installed signals on the Lang (Waycross) to Albany or the Waycross to Montgomery lines, even though it operated streamliners on them. Perhaps it felt that various considerations made a speed faster than 60 mph inadvisable.

The ICC did allow roads to apply for exemptions, and stated that local conditions would be considered.

Johnny

The Waycross to Montgomery line (presently known as the Bow Line) is presently 40 MPH from Waycross to Thomasville and 25 MPH from Thomasville to Montgomery. It is used as an overflow line for traffic from Birmingham to Waycross which has a normal route over the old AB&C from Birmingham to Manchester, GA to Waycross, using 2 crews with the crew change at Manchester. Traffic on the Bow Line has crew changes at Montgomery and Thomasville; using 3 crews.

[KCSfan]

The roads were given until the end of 1952 to add signaling, adding a certain percentage each year, and they were to add at least 25% or 100 miles, whichever was greater, by the end of 1947. Apparently, the IC chose not to add but to lengthen the City of New Orleans’s schedule.

Some roads made no change; for instance, the ACL never installed signals on the Lang (Waycross) to Albany or the Waycross to Montgomery lines, even though it operated streamliners on them. Perhaps it felt that various considerations made a speed faster than 60 mph inadvisable.

Johnny,

The entire Chicago - New Orleans route of the IC was Automatic Block Signaled and there was ATS between Champaign and Effingham IIRC. The IC had schedules that required running considerably in excess of the 79mph maximum allowed by the new ICC ordered limits on lines equipped only with ABS. Rather than spend the money to install more ATS the IC chose to slow some schedules to meet the speed limits imposed by the ICC and this resulted in lengthening the running time of the City of New Orleans.

I think you are wrong about the Montgomery to Waycross line of the ACL being dark. I distinctly remember riding the observation car of the SouthWind early one foggy morning from about Quitman to near Waycross and watching the semaphore ABS’s rising to the vertical as our train cleared each block. At that early hour the only other occupant of the car was the Flagman who I chatted with for better than an hour. I had the impression that the entire line from Montgomery east was signalled. Several years later I remember traveling by car on US 84 which paralleled the ACL in the Dothan - Bainbridge vicinity and seeing what I recall were searchlight ABS’s but my memory is a bit vague on that point.

Mark

[Deggesty]

The roads were given until the end of 1952 to add signaling, adding a certain percentage each year, and they were to add at least 25% or 100 miles, whichever was greater, by the end of 1947. Apparently, the IC chose not to add but to lengthen the City of New Orleans’s schedule.

Some roads made no change; for instance, the ACL never installed signals on the Lang (Waycross) to Albany or the Waycross to Montgomery lines, even though it operated streamliners on them. Perhaps it felt that various considerations made a speed faster than 60 mph inadvisable.

Johnny,

The entire Chicago - New Orleans route of the IC was Automatic Block Signaled and there was ATS between Champaign and Effingham IIRC. The IC had schedules that required running considerably in excess of the 79mph maximum allowed by the new ICC ordered limits on lines equipped only with ABS. Rather than spend the money to install more ATS the IC chose to slow some schedules to meet the speed limits imposed by the ICC and this resulted in lengthening the running time of the City of New Orleans.

I think you are wrong about the Montgomery to Waycross line of the ACL being dark. I distinctly remember riding the observation car of the SouthWind early one foggy morning from about Quitman to near Waycross and watching the semaphore ABS’s rising to the vertical as our train cleared each block. At that early hour the only other occupant of the car was the Flagman who I chatted with for better than an hour. I had the impression that the entire line from Montgomery east was signalled. Several years later I remember traveling by car on US 84 which paralleled the ACL in the Dothan - Bainbridge vicinity and seeing what I recall were searchlight ABS’s but my memory is a bit vague on that point.

Mark

Mark, when were you riding in the observation car on the

[MP173]

Mark:

Just a minor correction…ATS was in place from Champaign to Centralia (not Effingham). The City of New Orleans and other passenger trains were allowed 100mph on that section of track, subject to posted restrictions.

That lasted into the 1970’s, IIRC. I have ICG Employee timetables with the 100mph designation.

ed

[timz]

The ICC did allow roads to apply for exemptions, and stated that local conditions would be considered.

Were any granted?

[Deggesty]

The ICC did allow roads to apply for exemptions, and stated that local conditions would be considered.

Were any granted?

Timz, I really have no idea if any exemption was granted. There may have been some reported in Trains since August 1947, but I do not recall any. I do not have all issues until in 1950, and such may have been reported in issues I do not have. If any was granted, it probably was early on. What had stuck in my memory was the speed limits allowed and the conditions for increasing the speed limits. Does anybody else know of exemptions?

[KCSfan]

Mark, when were you riding in the observation car on the South Wind? The Waycross Division timetable in effect at 12:01 a. m. on Thursday, December 16, 1965, indicates that there was no ABS or CTC on the Waycross-Montgomery line. Could it be that the ACL had removed the signals from this line? Also, the United States Transportation Zone Maps of October 1975 shows that this line is dark. There were automatic interlocked crosings at Bainbridge (SAL) and Valdosta (GS&F).

Johnny,

It was around 1948 (could have been as late as 1950) when I made that particular trip on the South Wind. From what you report above the ACL must have removed the semaphore ABS’s sometime between then and 1965.

I made the auto trip that I wrote of in 1967 or 68. I remember a few things distinctly; that the line appeared to be well maintained, the Chattahoochee River bridge, and the station in Donalsonville with its semaphore train order board. I am far less certain about having seen searchlight ABS’s and I’m beginning to think I was wrong about them being in use on that stretch of trackage.

Mark

[KCSfan]

The ICC did allow roads to apply for exemptions, and stated that local conditions would be considered.

Were any granted?

Timz, I really have no idea if any exemption was granted. There may have been some reported in Trains since August 1947, but I do not recall any. I do not have all issues until in 1950, and such may have been reported in issues I do not have. If any was granted, it probably was early on. What had stuck in my memory was the speed limits allowed and the conditions for increasing the speed limits. Does anybody else know of exemptions?

Several of the western roads in particular ran passenger trains over stretches of dark, train order only territory at speeds far in excess of what the new ICC restrictions would allow. I remember reading that their applications to the ICC for exemptions were universally denied. The railroads argued that the marginal increase in safety on certain light traffic density lines did not justify the cost of installing an ABS system. I got the impression from this that the ICC approved few, if any, exemptions from the speed rules.

Mark

[Dakguy201]

Was there any indication that when the ICC made the rule they had some rational reason for picking 80 mph rather than some higher or lower number? It seems (60 years later) we are stuck on a number that was simply pulled out of the air.

Or, as Mason said to Dixon, “Well, we have to draw a line somewhere!”

[Falcon48]

Was there any indication that when the ICC made the rule they had some rational reason for picking 80 mph rather than some higher or lower number? It seems (60 years later) we are stuck on a number that was simply pulled out of the air.

Or, as Mason said to Dixon, “Well, we have to draw a line somewhere!”

The ICC rule and the ICC’s rationale for it are published in “ICC Reports”, a series of law books compiling ICC decisions extending from 1887 to the end of the ICC’s life in 1996 (when it was replaced by “STB Reports”). Sitting at my home computer, I don’t have ready access to these books (the decisions before the 1980’s aren’t available on-line), but they should be available at any comprehensive law library (and, of course, most large railroads have at least one set). You can find the signal decisions by using an index called “Hawkins”, which should also be available in such a library. I read the signal case some years ago, and it is quite extensive. Unfortunately, I don’t recall offhand the ICC’s rationale for the speed restrictions

As a historical footnote, in the 1940’s and 50’s, the ICC had jursidiction over rail safety, which is why they had the authority to issue a rule like this. This authority was transferred to FRA when the latter agency was created. However, the speed restrictions imposed by the ICC continue to survive as part of the FRA’s signal rules, see 49 CFR section 236.0 (available on line through the U.S. GPO website).