I could be way off on this, but it seems like the railroads generally called granger roads were Milwaukee Road, CRIP, CNW and IC(?) Wouldn’t a lot of others, like UP, NP, MKT, SSW, KATY, MP<, etc…seem to fit a similar description? What exactly was a granger road?
Merriam-Webster online defines “granger” as either a “farmer” or a “homesteader.” The Grange, the organization, was IIRC founded to press the interests of Great Plains farmers, who were tired of being ripped off by the RR’s when it came to transporting their wheat.
Santa Fe was a marvelous main line (the Southern Transcon still uses most of it), but it is not represented by branch lines or alternate lines in places like Kansas to the extent of the roads you mention. In New Mexico, yes, the exx-Santa Fe line splits but we don’t usually associate wheat-growing with New Mexico.
That’s the finest connotation I can put on it. There probably is a more refined definition, perhaps having to do with The Grange the organization, but someone else will have to post it.
Hope it was at least a little help, Murph. - a.s.
The big three railways in Kansas in terms of mileage were Santa Fe, MoPac, and Rock Island. But many of these mile are gone now, abandoned or sold to short lines. CB&Q was a nothing in Kansas, UP was strong in the northeast quadrant, and Frisco in the southeast quadrant. Santa Fe went almost everywhere in Kansas except the northwest corner.
The Grangers were a category of railways that derived the preponderance of their income from the corn and wheat states west of Chicago, hauled their harvests to Chicago, and didn’t seem to make much money. There is nothing scientific about what was a granger and what wasn’t. Railways that were lumped into the granger category were the C&NW, CMSTP&O, CGW, M&StL (didn’t go to Chicago!), CMStP&SSt.M, CRI&P, CB&Q (made money) and IC. The CMStP&P was a granger even though it went to the Pacific. The IC was a granger running west but something else running south. Railways that weren’t usually called grangers but sure looked like one on a large piece of their system included the Wabash, MoPac, Frisco, UP, MKT, T&P, and Santa Fe.
Granger is another one of those lovely railway terms that when said means something to us but is hard to describe.
RWM
Re: “Santa Fe went almost everywhere in Kansas except the northwest corner.”
Thanks for pointing out my error. Live and learn! - a.s.
Fred Frailey has an excellent 12 page article on Santa Fe’s wheat lines in the April 1984 Trains. Articles like those appeared on a regular basis in the magazine while DPM was editor.
[sigh]
I hope you don’t mind my picking a couple of nits but you seem to have introduced a large “S” curve through the Twin Cities for the CStPM&O and consummated a merger with the CMStP&P and the *MStP&SSM-*a.k.a. the Omaha Road, the Milwaukee Road and the Soo Line. Maybe that’s why the nicknames became widespread!
Still, it’s easy enough to catch that sitting in front of my PC. I’d hate to be a yard clerk on a rainy night trying to catch things with only a kerosene lamp to read by…
You’re right – typed to fast! Too many Saints.
Wabash? 'Never thought of that. Was the term ‘granger’ a contemporary term used to describe the lines back then, or a later term, used to describe them in the past tense?
It’s at least as old as the 1930s. I’d have to paw around on the bookshelf to see exactly when it appears.
RWM
I found this reference using the term in 1898. It’s a story about the Rock Island.
Other anecdotal findings refer to railroads as “granger,” but are written in the modern day, so one can’t tell if the reference is based on the terminology in use during the period discussed or current reference.
The Granger movement (which brought about some of the earliest regulation of railroads) dates to the late 1860’s or so.
If GCG&N/SCN/CK&O had gotten a little further along before failure and acquisition by ATSF you could have added NW corner too…(They had a filing map going through Russell Springs and St. Francis projected to Holyoke (CB&Q) & Julesburg (UP).) They got to Russell Springs,W-SW of Oakley by 1912.
The grange, while having chapters nationwide, seems to have had the most effect politically in the upper midwest, in states like Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota. The connotation of being a “granger road” is probably more from the region it serves as to the majority of it’s traffic base.
Jeff
Granger railroads
Gran"ger railroads, or Granger roads \Granger roads\ . (Finance) Certain railroads whose traffic largely consists in carrying the produce of farmers or grangers; – specifically applied to the Chicago & Alton; Chicago, Burlington & Quincey; Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific; Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul; and Chicago & Northwestern, railroads. [U. S.].
Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
Was the CGW a granger road too? - a.s.
I am glad that someone mentioned the C&A. At the turn of the century, here in north central Illinois (CORN COUNTRY), the C&A had a lot of branch lines going to small towns that had grain elevators. The Illinois Central was very active in these kind of branch lines & in my opinion, the C.B & Q had the most branches that served the farmers here.
Here is a link I use to see what the railroad system looked like in Illinois at the turn of the century.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/gmdhtml/rrhtml/rrhome.html
-Dave
I do not agree that Illinois Central was a granger railroad. Yes, IC did serve Minnesota,Wisconsin, Nebraska and Iowa,but it also served Tennessee.Mississippi,and Louisiana.Milwaukee would be considered a granger because it didn’t build its Pacific Extension until 1909,well after its granger roots. The IC served the South long before that.Even if the IC had taken over the M&StL before World War II,it would not have been a granger.
There were most definately portions of the IC that could be considered granger. The branchline system in the state of Illinois served considerable elevators.
ed
All true points – particularly after merger with GM&O – but everyone I know in the railway business for my 30 years calls the IC “a granger.” That’s the problem with categories: the boundaries usually are unclear.
I guess there’s two methods to using a category: One method is :“inside”: do whatever the railways do, even if it seems idiosyncratic and ad hoc. The other method is “outside”: do whatever the railways should have done, according to someone not at a railway. I’m an inside-guy. If my railway wants to insist that a locomotive is a C44-9W instead of a DASH 9-44CW like it says on the builder’s plate, I’m OK with that.
RWM
When I was looking around for info on granger roads I found one place that characterized the east-west portion of IC as granger, but not the north-south portion.