Nostalgia & History > Who authorized train-offs in 1950s-1960s?

The ignorant guess would be: state commissions
allowed intrastate train discontinuances and the
ICC ruled on interstate trains. But we've all heard
about interstate trains that were discontinued in
one state and had to keep running in a neighboring
state, and presumably that wasn't an ICC edict.

In 1955 the Chicago-Oakland Gold Coast ended
over its whole run. Did SP/UP/CNW get together
and go to the ICC for permission, or did they
have to get the okay from each state?

Did the situation change in 1958?

My guess is that it would take an army of army of attorneys to figure out which agency had authority for each train.
ALLEN

my guess is that for interstate trains, the decision rested solely with the ICC

PUC on intrastate trains and ICC on interstate trains

timz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The ignorant guess would be: state commissions
> allowed intrastate train discontinuances and the
> ICC ruled on interstate trains. But we've all
> heard
> about interstate trains that were discontinued in
> one state and had to keep running in a
> neighboring
> state, and presumably that wasn't an ICC edict.
>
> In 1955 the Chicago-Oakland Gold Coast ended
> over its whole run. Did SP/UP/CNW get together
> and go to the ICC for permission, or did they
> have to get the okay from each state?
>
> Did the situation change in 1958?

I am not an expert in these matters, but I believe permission for discontinuance had to be secured from both the ICC and the state PUCs in the case of interstate trains. In some cases, the ICC approved but a state PUC did not, leading to a truncated train service that had to be maintained.

I also believe that discontinuance was much easier if there remained other trains operating on the line after discontinuance; in that case, the ICC and the PUCs might waive hearings and simply approve it.

Discontinuance was really hard when the last train operating on a line was involved. That must have always required hearings, considerable delay, and considerable legal expenses.

Best regards,

Rob L.

Loss of mail contracts often triggered train-off requests.  That changed the train's revenue mix, rarely for the better.

timz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> we've all heard
> about interstate trains that were discontinued in
> one state and had to keep running in a
> neighboring state

The case which comes to mind for me is the "Niland Turn", in which the ICC authorized SP to combine the Golden State and the Sunset, but the California PUC insisted that both schedules be maintained. SP ran the intrastate "Niland Turn" to obey the order PUC. Then a Federal judge restrained the PUC from interfering with the ICC decision, and that the Niland turn was history. ICC 1, PUC 0.

rob_l Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> timz Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The ignorant guess would be: state commissions
> > allowed intrastate train discontinuances and
> the
> > ICC ruled on interstate trains. But we've all
> > heard
> > about interstate trains that were discontinued
> in
> > one state and had to keep running in a
> > neighboring
> > state, and presumably that wasn't an ICC edict.
> >
> > In 1955 the Chicago-Oakland Gold Coast ended
> > over its whole run. Did SP/UP/CNW get together
> > and go to the ICC for permission, or did they
> > have to get the okay from each state?
> >
> > Did the situation change in 1958?
>
> I am not an expert in these matters, but I believe
> permission for discontinuance had to be secured
> from both the ICC and the state PUCs in the case
> of interstate trains. In some cases, the ICC
> approved but a state PUC did not, leading to a
> truncated train service that had to be
> maintained.

>
> Rob L.

I'm not an expert either. I agree that when there were multiple schedules on the same route, the process was easier.

The ICC had sole authority over interstate through trains. However, as train service wound down in the mid-1960s, the ICC became more sensitive to the local impacts that the discontinuances would have. In some cases, they held local hearings.

The power that the California PUC had over SP allowed them to successfully pull the "public convenience and necessity" card with at least one interstate train off.

Tim, why to you think the year 1958 figures in this?

Bob

bnsfbob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Tim, why to you think the year 1958 figures in
> this?
>
> Bob

Ok, answered my own question. From Wikipedia: "The Transportation Act of 1958 gave the ICC jurisdiction over passenger train discontinuances, previously under the authority of the state commissions (state authorities had allowed discontinuance of through trains with states, e.g. allowing a New York- Chicago train to be discontinued within Ohio)."

When the Rio Grande wanted to abandon the San Juan from Alomosa to Durango it was approved by the Feds, but the state of New Mexico did not approve.  Rio Grande ran a round trip between Chama and the last station west in New Mexico a couple of months before New Mexico let them discontinue the train.

In the case of the SP's attempts to combine the Golden State ( LA to Chicago via Tucumcari and Rock Island) and the Sunset (LA and New Orleans), they did not ever request permission to discontinue either train.  They merely combined the two trains between LA and El Paso, Texas.  The SP contention was that both trains were operating over their original routes but on a slightly different schedule.  The effective date of combining  the trains was April 20, 1964. 
Almost immediately, the California PUC had a hissy-fit claiming that a train had been discontinued.  They ordered the SP to resume operation of the "Golden State" but only within the State of California.  SP did so, running one engine, a coach and a lounge car from LA to Niland, California ( 60 miles from Yuma),  on the old schedules.  Of course, no one rode the train ( who wants to go to Niland?) but the operation continued until about June 5th, when the summer traffic required the combined Sunset/Golden State to operate in two sections.  At the end of the summer, the trains were combined again and the Niland Flyer just disappeared.
I was working for the SP as a brakeman and conductor during that era, and frequently I worked the combined trains.   What a great time!  While the SP could get the train out of LA each evening that first summer, the Rock Island connection Westward into El Paso was always three or four hours late, so the SP would run the Sunset on time, sans the RI connection, and then run a second section, which required a passenger crew to deadhead to Yuma to bring the second section in, usually about 5 hours late.  In July 65, I deadheaded from LA to Yuma 14 times to catch a second section back to LA.  I always enjoyed a soft drink in the Rock Island lounge car leaving LA before retiring to the drawing room on the RI sleeper where the train crew of four men (conductor, baggageman, and two brakemen, would get a few hours rest before arriving Yuma about 300am.  By the way, train crews deadheading on duty in passenger service could occupy a room in Pullman cars without charge.


 TIOGA PASS 

Norman Orfall
Helendale, CA
TIOGA PASS, a private railcar

---

The ICC was rather inconsistent when it came to trains discontinuances.  In 1968, it allowed the Chief to come off,but required  the Santa Fe to maintain the coach only Grand Canyon  until the advent of Amtrack on May 1, 1971. David P. Morgan wrote an interesting editorial in the May, 68 issue of Trains entitled "There must be Two ICC's." There were a number cases similar to the Chief and Grand Canyon.

mopacrr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In 1968, it allowed the Chief to come off, but
> required the Santa Fe to maintain the coach
> only Grand Canyon until the advent of Amtrack
> on May 1, 1971.

New Rule:  Any participant here on Trainorders who spells Amtrak with a "c" will be brought up on formal charges.

mopacrr, you can expect your certified "charge" letter to appear in your mailbox within the next several days.

I've always been intrigued by the handful of railroads that, once they received approval for a train to be discontinued, didn't even allow the train to finish its journey and booted everyone off so they could finish their trip on a bus.  The CB&Q did this with their Billings-Omaha train.

Perhaps the worst offender was the Chicago Aurora & Elgin Railroad, who brought commuters into Chicago in the morning and then let them fend for themselves in getting home that night after receiving discontinuance authority mid-day.

From Wikipedia:

As early as 1952, the railroad had sought to substitute buses for the trains, and after years of financial losses, in April 1957 the Illinois
Commerce Commission authorized the railroad to discontinue passenger service.  Passenger groups and affected municipalities sought injunctions that
forced the railroad to temporarily continue service, but as soon as court rulings cleared the way, management abrubtly ended passenger service, at noon on July 3, 1957.  Commuters who had ridden the CA&E into the city found themselves stranded when they returned to take the train home.

mopacrr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The ICC was rather inconsistent when it came to
> trains discontinuances.  In 1968, it allowed the
> Chief to come off,but required  the Santa Fe to
> maintain the coach only Grand Canyon  until the
> advent of Amtrack on May 1, 1971. David P. Morgan
> wrote an interesting editorial in the May, 68
> issue of Trains entitled "There must be Two
> ICC's." There were a number cases similar to the
> Chief and Grand Canyon.

A friend of mine attended the discontinuance hearings in Albuquerque. He said there was a vocal outcry from a group which he called "pass riders and Indians". He said that is why 23 & 24 kept running.

For years, Santa Fe was very generous with pass rider and other partial-fare benefits on its passenger trains. However, the railroad went to great lengths through pass and tariff restrictions, rules and extra fares to keep the "great unwashed masses" off of the premier trains (17 & 18, 19 & 20, 1 & 2).  This group of "undesirables" included deadheads, pass riders, MoW crews, partial-fare riders, etc. When the only remaining "steerage class", all-stops train, the Grand Canyon, was placed on the docket, this rather sizable group made quite a bit of noise. They apparently were successful.

To the rest of us, loss of the Chief was a major tragedy. Such a wonderful train with the big dome lounge and convenient schedule. Tore up miles at 90+ mph like you wouldn't believe.

Bob



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/29/15 07:22 by bnsfbob.

SP-UP-C&NW trains 23 and 24, GOLD COAST

were discontinued January 9, 1955.  I am sorry I
do not have the ICC Finance Docket Number.
If you wish to pursue the matter suggest you
contact the following:
National Archives and Records Administration
Archives II Section
Textual Reference Division
8601 Adelphi Road
College Park, MD 20740-6001



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/15 07:32 by goldcoast.