Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.10 $; site uiucuxc
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!roma
From: roma@uiucuxc.CSO.UIUC.EDU
Newsgroups: net.railroad
Subject: Re: CNW Left Handed Running
Message-ID: <16900022@uiucuxc>
Date: Mon, 10-Feb-86 13:32:00 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucuxc.16900022
Posted: Mon Feb 10 13:32:00 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 12-Feb-86 08:15:50 EST
References: <673@hlwpc.UUCP>
Lines: 63
Nf-ID: #R:hlwpc.UUCP:673:uiucuxc:16900022:000:3422
Nf-From: uiucuxc.CSO.UIUC.EDU!roma    Feb 10 12:32:00 1986


> > I'm told that the real reason that the C&NW runs left handed has absolutely
> > nothing to do with English investors.  It seems that when the line was
> > single track in the suburban Chicago area, many (most?) of the stations were
> > built on the right (heading away from Chicago.)  When they double tracked
> > the commuter lines they decided to run lefthanded to give the commuters
> > shelter while awaiting the train on cold winter mornings.  Passengers are
> > likely to arrive at the station some minutes ahead of the expected train
> > arrival in the morning, but leave it essentially immediately after arrival
> > in the afternoon, so this makes sense.
> 
> Yes, but the North Western did left-handed running everywhere they had
> double track -- not just in Chicago suburban commuter territory.
> For example, the line from Chicago to Milwaukee to Minneapolis was
> once double-trackked all the way, and left-handed running was the norm.
> For over-the-road passenger trains and for freight trains, it doesn't
> matter which side of the tracks the station is on.  So I'd discount the
> above explanation for left-handed running.
> 
> Carl Blesch

First, I don't think the entire Chicago-Minneapolis line was double track.
I'd have to check some of my old employee timetables to be sure, but I
recall reading about the tight schedule the "400" passenger trains had
to keep in order to make meets along the way.

As for the main issue, I'll agree that for freight trains and mainline
passenger trains, it doesn't matter which side the station is on.  But for
operational consistency, it's best that, within a crew division, all trains
run one way or the other!  Indeed, I've seen C&NW stations outside of the
Chicago area that are situated on the "wrong" side of the tracks, but this
probably indicates that there was a fairly even distribution of east- and
westbound traffic at those points.  Though right-hand running may be more
common, it's no better or worse than left-hand running.  So, as C&NW extended
their tracks westward, they continued to use left-hand operation.  Any
changeover would have incurred a great deal of expense (even in those days)
and no benefit.  (This is the explanation that C&NW gives for its tradition of
left-hand operation.)

Today, the distinction between left- and right-hand operation is largely moot
because of the advent of CTC.  Much double track has been replaced by
passing sidings or has been made more flexible by bi-directional signaling.  

An interesting sidelight is that on part of the C&NW system, right-hand running
was the norm.  The Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha (known as the "Omaha
Road") started out running right-handed.  When C&NW purchased it, they kept
it that way.  Again, the expense of a changeover would have been prohibitive.
The Omaha Road was a distinct operating division, so no confusion developed.
I have a 1953 C&NW rulebook that states:

On C&NW, trains will use the left-hand track.
On CStPM&O, trains will use the right-hand track.

The CStPM&O lost its corporate identity around 1959, but as far as I know, the
division lines remained.  I don't know if there is any double track left on
the lines that were once Omaha Road tracks.

Jon Roma
Computing Services Office, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

UUCP:	 {ihnp4,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!roma
ARPANET: roma%uiucuxc@uiuc.arpa
CSNET:	 roma%uiucuxc@uiuc.csnet