Multi-road interlocking plants costs were handled on a
case by case basis. The railroads involved entered
into agreements for each such point. They were very
elaborate, and covered all costs, i.e. construction,
upgrades, repairs, labor, supplies, etc.. The ICC had
it's nose stuck in this as well. The AAR had a point
system to allocate costs, too. Each switch, each
signetc. ect. had a point assigned to it.JohnKohn D.
Mitchell, Jr.
--- "herrick01 <bherrick@k...>"
<bherrick@k...> wrote:
> Denny,
>
> The diagram sheet provides dates of installation of
> 1899 and 1911
> and states that the plant was built by the
> Milwaukee. Further:
>
> Installation: CB&Q 50%
> CM&STP 50%
>
> Maintenance: CB&Q 100%
>
> Ownership: Same as maintenance
>
> Operation: CB&Q 100%
>
> Supplies: CB&Q 100%
>
> Repairing: CB&Q
>
> It was my understanding that the "second" railroad
> to town paid all
> costs of construction, operation and maintenance of
> an interlocking
> plant but that the installation is actually owned
> and manned by the
> railroad it crosses. I defer to the railroad
> veterans' knowledge on
> this, however.
>
> My source for the diagram sheet is a
> photo-reproduction of all
> Milwaukee interlocking installations from 1900 to
> 1931 originally
> offered in a ring binder--now on CD--by Dave Cramer.
> Check out his
> website at www.trainsite.8m.com.
>
> Bob
>
>
> --- In BRHSlist@yahoogroups.com, Denny Anspach
> <danspach@m...> wrote:
> > Very interesting installation. Which railroad
> (CB&Q vs. CMStP&P)
> was
> > "senior", i.e. who actually built, owned and
> staffed the
> interlocking
> > itself?
> >
> > Denny
> > --
> > Denny S. Anspach, MD
> > Sacramento, CA
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
|