If the list could be narrowed to that size…what would they be? After browsing several threads over the last week my interest has been piqued. If I were to be only able to get 10 books on RR history (general-why some lines thrived/died, mergers, etc) what would my best bets be?
General, Synthetic Histories are:
-
Unfinished Business, Klein
-
Geography of the North American Railroad, Vance
-
Transcontinental Railway Strategy, Grodinski
-
Merging Lines, Saunders
-
Working for the Railroad, Licht
-
Railroad Rates and Regulation, Ripley
The only histories of specific railways I think are worthy of a top 10 list are:
- Empire Express, Bain
Books on my bottom 10 list are anything by Albro Martin.
RWM
I thought the American Heritage book by Jensen was an excellent broad and general history, excellent for the beginner or novice. From this book one can seek and direct oneself to specific areas of interest. By that I mean specific railorads, specific geography, specific technology, specific business or other aspect of railroads histories. Also I suggest books by those who know railroads and histories and not a hack who wants to rip railroads, managements and politics apart nor those authors/editors/compilers or photographers or publishers who put together books just to make a quick buck. Again, each person’s tastes and interests are going to be the guage by which a list would be made.
My own short list would include:
Railroads Triumphant (Maury Klein)
Canadian Pacific East (Omer Lavallee)
The National Dream (Pierre Berton)
The Big Four (Oscar Lewis)
Canadian Steam! (David P Morgan)
Magnetic North (Cook/Zimmerman)
Steam, Steel, and Stars (O Winston Link)
The Nickel Plate Road John A. Rehor, Kalmbach Publishing, circa 1964.
It’s more than just a history of a regional railroad - it really interweaves with the settling and industrial development of the upper Midwest US from the late 1800s through 1950 - the book itself goes up to the N&W-Wabash merger in 1964, but I didn’t get as much out of the post-WW II years portion. Its strong points are the detailed histories of the early years of all the constiutent lines; the account of the Van Sweringen brothers’ ownership and control via their Allegheny Corporation of the NKP, C&O, and Pere Marquette and their development projects in Cleveland (Terminal Tower); their Joint Mechanical Committee that developed the specifications that led to the NKP’s 700-series Berkshires; the history of the Berkshires themselves, as well as the NKP’s other steam power and passenger trains; photos and captions tied into the text from the 1920s through the 1950s that make that era of history - beyond the railroad itself - really understandable. It’s really a microcosm of the railroading business and the entire country during that time frame, and if you want to “drill down” and go for “depth” instead of “breadth” in a history of at least 1 railroad and 1 region, I’d say this is a good one with which to do it.
- Paul North.
I’ll admit I haven’t read 10 RR history books (I have a large collection of what I call “picture books” meaning Morning Sun-type books).
But I’ll submit one for certain:
The Wreck Of The Penn Central
Great reading - couldn’t put it down at times.
Neither have I and I’d like to start doing so. I guess I’ve turned somewhat of a page in my interest from “Hey a train” to “Where is that going, why there, and what did ‘they’ used to do here (and elsewhere)?”
Add George Hilton’s American Narrow Gauge Railways in there somewhere.
Now only if that Big Four book was about the railroad (CCC&StL) instead of the left coast schlepps…really tired of reading about PRR and NYC from the Allegheny mounds eastward. The books on th Vandalia & the Panhandle are about to be printed, but Big 4 is still under-represented.
Rehor’s book could have been better as could have Heimendinger’s Wabash effort in the text, but both are in my reference library.
RWM
I hate to disagree with you but I think everyone with an interest in rail history, er even american business history should read and understand Albro Martin’s “Enterprise Denied” as it tells the tale of how the industry got on the road to rack and ruin.
Mac
I really enjoyed New Haven Railroad by Peter E. Lynch it covers the New Haven from it’s beginning to it’s merger with Penn Central, also it is loaded with photos.
I agree it’s a great idea to study regulation and its consequences. I just don’t particularly like that Martin felt it was OK to:
-
refuse to use accepted methods of historical inquiry
-
refuse to divulge his sources, and in fact disparage anyone who requested them
-
substitute opinion for reason
-
selectively use only facts that supported his opinions
Martin’s books are opinion. Not history.
It’s useful to read Martin’s books to learn about Martin and the political viewpoint he espoused, like you would read the platform of the Democratic or Republican party. But as far as railways go, that’s just a lens from which to view his politics.
I don’t always disagree with Martin’s politics, but his claim that he was writing history I find false.
RWM
I would add “Burlington Route”, by Richard Overton.
RWM said
I agree it’s a great idea to study regulation and its consequences. I just don’t particularly like that Martin felt it was OK to:
-
refuse to use accepted methods of historical inquiry
-
refuse to divulge his sources, and in fact disparage anyone who requested them
-
substitute opinion for reason
-
selectively use only facts that supported his opinions
Martin’s books are opinion. Not history.
I don’t always disagree with Martin’s politics, but his claim that he was writing history I find false.
RWM
RWM:
I hope I did the quote thing correctly as I have never tried it before.
I am having difficulty accepting your claim that Enterprise Denied is something other than history.
As to #1. Having a hypotheses and attempting to prove or disprove it is long accepted scientific/historical proactice. It seems to me that Martin is one of the very few to propose, let alone test, the hypotheses that government actions against the carriers had consequences. Most other authors take as a given that whatever actions the government took were “good” and therefore had no consequences. That too is a political choice/bias. What “accepted method” did he not use?
As to #2. The book is extensively footnoted, thereby divulging the sources. Are you refering to something that happened after the book was published?
As to #3. My perception is that this charge would be more accurately laid against the “standard” historians, very few of whom consider alternative actions and outcomes.
As to #4, the earnings data are what they are and earnings fell off consistently after 1906. That is entirely consistent with his hypothesis.
Martin is the only author I know of who has tried to assess the adverse impact of government policy on the rail industry. This is a critically important subject, for the entire economy, not “just”
[quote user=“PNWRMNM”]
RWM said
I agree it’s a great idea to study regulation and its consequences. I just don’t particularly like that Martin felt it was OK to:
-
refuse to use accepted methods of historical inquiry
-
refuse to divulge his sources, and in fact disparage anyone who requested them
-
substitute opinion for reason
-
selectively use only facts that supported his opinions
Martin’s books are opinion. Not history.
I don’t always disagree with Martin’s politics, but his claim that he was writing history I find false.
RWM
RWM:
I hope I did the quote thing correctly as I have never tried it before.
I am having difficulty accepting your claim that Enterprise Denied is something other than history.
As to #1. Having a hypotheses and attempting to prove or disprove it is long accepted scientific/historical proactice. It seems to me that Martin is one of the very few to propose, let alone test, the hypotheses that government actions against the carriers had consequences. Most other authors take as a given that whatever actions the government took were “good” and therefore had no consequences. That too is a political choice/bias. What “accepted method” did he not use?
As to #2. The book is extensively footnoted, thereby divulging the sources. Are you refering to something that happened after the book was published?
As to #3. My perception is that this charge would be more accurately laid against the “standard” historians, very few of whom consider alternative actions and outcomes.
As to #4, the earnings data are what they are and earnings fell off consistently after 1906. That is entirely consistent with his hypothesis.
Martin is the only author I know of who has tried to assess the adverse impact of government policy on the rail industry. This is a critically important subject, for th
I’ll chime in again and say start with a book about the railroad you are most interested in or the one nearest your home. If it is a picture book, so what, it may pique your interest to find out more by getting to something more serious and in depth. But find what appeals to you and start there.
I have read dozens of histories but the one’s I have kept are those pertraining to my favorite roads like the DL&W, Erie, Erie Lackawanna, LIRR, NYC’s Harlem Div. But I have tons of other books especially fiction about or taken place on or about railroads or trains. Some juvenile classics, others deep mysteries, others, just plain nonesense. S
Go look for what you want and see where it takes you.
I’ll chime in again and say start with a book about the railroad you are most interested in or the one nearest your home. If it is a picture book, so what, it may pique your interest to find out more by getting to something more serious and in depth. But find what appeals to you and start there.
I have read dozens of histories but the one’s I have kept are those pertraining to my favorite roads like the DL&W, Erie, Erie Lackawanna, LIRR, NYC’s Harlem Div. But I have tons of other books especially fiction about or taken place on or about railroads or trains. Some juvenile classics, others deep mysteries, others, just plain nonesense. S
Go look for what you want and see where it takes you.
Somewhere I have a book or two by Martin. I may have to go looking for them again, to see what I’m missing. I do have an opinion on alternative actions and outcomes in history books. That, is that I find them to be entertaining reading, but of the fiction variety. For example, it might be fun to consider an alternative history where Milwaukee Road triumphs over BN. It would be entertaining fiction, but would have no bearing on history.
Things turned out the way they did. History, to my way of thinking, would be an explanation of why that happened, not of what might have happened if things were different. I enjoy finding something in a book (or forum) that challenges a pre-conceived idea in my head. It cause me to think harder. I dislike writers who throw out contrary information and don’t prove it up. I hate writers who will write something just plain false, in order to juice up a story, or prove their own pre-conceived idea. History should not have to require suspension of belief.
I’d note two things: I enjoy reading your posts. It took me about 6 months, with a lot of coaching, to learn to quote somebody on this forum.
RWM,
I think our only point of disagreement is whether Enterprise Denied is History or not. To me it is a more than other works I could cite but will not in the interest of time and focus. Martin accurately points out that all parties had their axe to grind. This should surprise no one who knows anything about politics, and this was big time politics of the era, which is why I believe it is important today.
My struggle in reading this book to get through the tedious detail of the regulatory process. While it is painful to read, to me it is evidence in support of his hypothesis.
Martin claims in his preface “This volume is the result of an effort to unravel the inconsistencies in the story as it has been taught to me and to millions of others.” The story is the history of the “Railroad Problem.” Could he be lying, that is did he start out to prove something? Certainly he could. Even if he set out to prove something, which in my personal opinion he did not, that fact does not make the thing he set out to prove either true or untrue. A thing either is or is not true. It makes perfectly good sense to me that a historian has to have a hypothesis or working theory.
You alluded to your educational background giving you an understanding of historic perspective. I would like to hear more about that as time allows.
Mac
Good choice and I would also recommend Hilton and Due’s book on Electric Interurbans - which went into detail as to why debt financing can be a bad idea.
I would also recommend White’s books on American Railroad Freight Cars (and his book on Passenger Cars) - though these might be considered more history of technology.
"A thing either is or is not true. It makes perfectly good sense to me that a historian has to have a hypothesis or working theory. "
Mr. Martin did not write a history book, but a book presenting a persuasive argument. Well written books using persuasive argument can indeed be fascinating reads. He had a viewpoint which he set out to prove.
An hypothesis leads to a theory that stands true consistenly. In other words, in scientific research, the researcher can not publish a result of his/her research without having the hard data and more importantly, replicable experiments to back that data. The theory, the scientist researcher sought to prove true has to be “true” enough that that anyone, doing the precise same experiments will come to the same conclusiion. Once the original experiments are proven to be duplicable with the same results, then, and only then, is the theory accepted as “true.” And rarely is it in science, that a theory is proven true without the consensus of others in the same field of science.
The historian approaches historical research like a scientist. He/She uses facts and acceptable 1st and secondary sources to prove a hypothesis to the point that any other person researching the same history will come to the same conclusion or truth. Historians look for the “true.” A historian’s book can be bantored among his/her peers as being correct in assumptions or not based on the “trueness” of the facts assembled and if the research proves well known facts in a different light or if the researcher was able to obtain new information/facts that can lead other historians to challenge accepted understanding of accepted history.
In science or history, the researcher starts with a question and seeks an answer. The persuasive writer has an answer and seeks to find questions that lead to that answer. Excellence in persuasive writing is a highly val