HOL WAGNER wrote:
> Though the term "Joint Line" was not employed in either the 1899 or more
> detailed 1900 agreements that created the joint operation between Denver
> and Pueblo, the term was used by both C&S and Santa Fe employees and
> officials right from the start. The first "official" use of the name I
> have encountered is a Santa Fe claim form (Form 506 Special), of which
> 1,000 were printed in June 1901, carrying the heading
> "Joint Line. The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company, The
> Colorado & Southern Railway Company."
>
> Hol Wagner
>
>
> Mark Sellars wrote:
> > Greetings All,
> >
> > 1. Joint Line.
> > Came into being in August 1899 with agreement - the Joint
> Operating Agreement" - between C&S and AT&SF to operate over each
> others lines between Denver and Pueblo. The agreement did not refer
> to a Joint Line as such.
> > My guess is that the C&S men referred to the "Old Line" (ie the
> old D&NO line) but referred to the ATSF line as the "Joint Line".
> The nickname, however it came up, soon caught on.
> > The D&RG was not a party to this agreement.
> > The original agreement was periodically renewed.
> >
> > 2. The D&RGW
> > In 1918 the USRA took over the management of the nation's RRs.
> > It forced the AT&SF and the D&RGW to 'double track' their
> respective lines by the use of cross overs. What, if any say the RRs
> had to say at the time about this proposal, I do not know.
> > But the arrangement worked so well that........... a formal
> "Double Track Agreement was not signed till 1936!
> >
> > 3. Treaty of Boston.
> > It is difficult to say for certain from afar.
> > But with the Treaty of Boston signed in 1880 and eighteen months
> later the D&RG laying the third rail, I suspect the common
> denominators were Jay Gould and William Barstow Strong, both experts
> in Grand Strategy (but for different reasons).
> > It did not take long, apparently for the Treaty to become
> 'fluid'.
> > Perhaps the D&RG offered the third rail as a way of
> countering a move by the AT&Sf in another direction.
> > By the way Gould arranged the funding for the 1881-82
> expansion of the D&RGW, including the third rail.
> > But perhaps the D&RG would have done it earlier if it had had
> the funds; the D&RG was not over flush with money in late 1870s when
> it had to look to its own resources to raise funds.
> > The third rail was put down at a time well before the CRIP and
> the Mopac reached. Colorado.
> >
> > A very interesting time in Colorado to be sure.
> >
> > Thanks for your help.
> >
> > regards, Mark
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Jerry Day <jerry474@comcast.net <mailto:jerry474@comcast.net>>
> > To: DRGW@yahoogroups.com <mailto:DRGW@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 9:39:58 AM
> > Subject: [DRGW] Re: The third rail on D&RG's Denver Pueblo line.
> >
> >
> > Mark:
> >
> > I guess it was for more than one reason that the D&RG laid third
> rail
> > from Denver to Pueblo. The D&RG Board of Director minutes for the
> > peroid indicate the D&RG realized they were being surrounded by
> > standard gauge railroads. The D&RG continued to build narrow gauge
> > for many more years, but the BOD clearly recognized that the future
> > was standard gauge.
> >
> > The others were correct to point out the deal with the AT&SF, but
> > that was short term, the long term threat from other standard gauge
> > lines is what pushed the movement toward dual or standard gauge.
> >
> > Jerry Day
> >
> > --- In DRGW@yahoogroups <mailto:DRGW@yahoogroups>. com, Mark
> Sellars <sellarsmark_ aus@...> wrote:
> >> Greetings All
> >>
> >> In 1881 the D&RG started to lay a third rail to allow standard gage
> > rolling stock to operate between Pueblo and Denver. The work was
> > probably completed in1882.
> >>
> >> Did the initiative arise out of the "Treaty of Boston"? Or was
> > it just to increase revenue?
> >>
> >> Presumably the locomotives were AT&SF.
> >> Did the D&RG soon after 1882, acquire SG locomotives to operate on
> > the line or did they 'lease' them from the UP?
> >> When did they start to acquire SG freight cars?
> >>
> >> Can anyone direct me to some reading/ information on this matter?
> >> Regards, Mark
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:CBQ-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:CBQ-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
CBQ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|