To: | <CBQ@groups.io> |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: [CBQ] Magazine and book resources |
From: | "sellarsmark_aus via Groups.Io" <sellarsmark_aus=yahoo.com@groups.io> |
Date: | Fri, 26 Jul 2019 23:45:20 +0000 (UTC) |
Delivered-to: | unknown |
Delivered-to: | archives@nauer.org |
Delivered-to: | mailing list CBQ@groups.io |
Dkim-signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=groups.io; q=dns/txt; s=20140610; t=1564184727; bh=Vc5Dow1MaR0tYIQRC4a8cdy+ONUPznhyOoWRg7/+jx8=; h=Content-Type:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To; b=gSz3YXZk7XkE2AG15M7UPHRvKbt5/n2+8Kt0oGXRms7MMCCYTG6NteZ/gsFSsBtY6wo xeGvlpNylt6DKdu2R24NkT7UYfgCGHlRgFVtVRaZsmCMMeEQsIyw1tyTiqFqq77SKQtto 4d2EJod237CPx0LrkTVoX8aztEjKYRzNFpE= |
In-reply-to: | <CY4PR14MB1605EA143CC29CCD4628611BCAC00@CY4PR14MB1605.namprd14.prod.outlook.com> |
List-id: | <CBQ.groups.io> |
List-unsubscribe: | <https://groups.io/g/CBQ/unsub> |
Mailing-list: | list CBQ@groups.io; contact CBQ+owner@groups.io |
References: | <ME2PR01MB429066FCFB591001EBCFE56EB9C60@ME2PR01MB4290.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com> <1447775583.1122478.1564015069433@mail.yahoo.com> <CY4PR14MB1605D96CAC26A27CFF3C076BCAC10@CY4PR14MB1605.namprd14.prod.outlook.com> <1838432901.1129456.1564098853043@mail.yahoo.com> <CY4PR14MB1605EA143CC29CCD4628611BCAC00@CY4PR14MB1605.namprd14.prod.outlook.com> |
Reply-to: | CBQ@groups.io |
Sender: | CBQ@groups.io |
Greetings Hol! As always your research and willingness to share is peerless. Mark
On Friday, 26 July 2019, 11:08:41 pm ACST, HOL WAGNER <holpennywagner@msn.com> wrote:
Mark:
Unfortunately, no, I still do not have a copy of the 1899 JOA. Years ago I asked for a copy of the document from the Colorado Historical Society (I'm a stubborn old goat and refuse to use the History Colorado name, which I associate with their present
status as an entertainment center for children), when I found it in their C&S archives. I got a big bunch of other copies of a great variety of C&S documents and correspondence, but not the JOA and the CHS library could never find it again. All this was
well before they moved to their current quarters and further misplaced many of their holdings. They have become a nearly useless organization when it comes to preserving Colorado history.
The Santa Fe and C&S predecessor entities worked in close accord at both Pueblo and Denver right from the start, the Santa Fe granting the Denver, Texas & Gulf/Denver, Texas & Fort Worth use of its "loop track" in Pueblo to reach the union depot there,
while DT&G granted the Santa Fe the right to construct its own track on the DT&G right-of-way from South Denver to Denver Union Depot. This was done under an 1887 agreement (which you probably have a copy of from Larry Green). The DT&FW's 1887-88 line from
Pueblo Junction up Salt Creek to Bessemer and the Colorado Coal & Iron Company iron and steel mill south of Pueblo was built by the DT&FW but with Santa Fe given a half interest in it and an equal right to serve the Philadelphia smelter, stockyards and Nuckolls
Packing Plant near the steel mill. The Santa Fe in 1887 surveyed a line in Denver that split off its mainline in the union depot and continued on along the bank of the South Platte River to 15th St. before crossing the river and turning north and then east
to served the Argo and Globe smelters and the Denver Union Stockyards. Only the portion as far as 14th St. was built, as construction of the West Side Line by the UPD&G in 1890 obviated the need for the rest of the Santa Fe line, as the Santa Fe was given
access to the facilities it hoped to served with its own line. And there are numerous instances of further close cooperation between the two roads right from the time the Santa Fe reached Denver in 1887.
At least three times during the 1890s, newspaper reports detailed plans for the two roads to begin use of the other's tracks between Denver and Pueblo, the most unlikely one calling for the Santa Fe to abandon its own trackage in favor of the inferior
UPD&G route. But there was very clearly talk of the two roads using the same trackage almost from the time the Santa Fe's Denver line was completed. We may never know who or what actually precipitated the start of negotiations in 1899 leading to the original
JOA.
Hol
From: CBQ@groups.io <CBQ@groups.io> on behalf of sellarsmark_aus via Groups.Io <sellarsmark_aus=yahoo.com@groups.io>
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2019 5:54 PM To: CBQ@groups.io <CBQ@groups.io> Subject: Re: [CBQ] Magazine and book resources Greetings Hol.
Thanks for your correction.
So, it is the 1899 JOA I need. Do you have a copy?
There was a JOA between the ASTF and the SP in early 1899 (ie before the ATSF/C&S) covering the joint usage of SP's Tehachapi, CA track.
I am interested is seeing if there are similarities between the JOAs. It is likely that the Tehachapi JOA would have been reported in the railroad press. Perhaps this sparked the C&S's interest in a similar deal.
Please excuse my failing brainpower, a legacy of Indo-China circa 1970.
Mark
On Friday, 26 July 2019, 2:40:53 am ACST, HOL WAGNER <holpennywagner@msn.com> wrote:
Mark:
Your original JOA dates are off by one year. The original JOA was effective Aug 1, 1899, as the C&S did not begin operation until Jan 12, 1899 and was not incorporated until Dec 19, 1898. The original agreement was renewed and expanded after one year,
thus in 1900, and, greatly expanded and modified, remains in effect today.
Hol
From: CBQ@groups.io <CBQ@groups.io> on behalf of sellarsmark_aus via Groups.Io <sellarsmark_aus=yahoo.com@groups.io>
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2019 6:37 PM To: CBQ@groups.io <CBQ@groups.io> Subject: Re: [CBQ] Magazine and book resources Hello Rupert,
I hope you are well!
I am looking for a copy of the Joint Operating Agreement ("JOA") between the Colorado & Southern and the ATSF operative from 1 August 1898 and 31 July 1899. A new JOA became operative on 1 August 1899 and it has been renewed since.
Hol Wagner says he saw a copy in the C&S archives in History Colorado (A public archive of Colorado's history in Denver, CO). The copy has grown legs or has been misfiled. History Coloardo holds most of the old C&S corporate documents.
The agreement, modified slightly, has is operative today. It covers the joint usage of the ATSF track between South Denver and Pueblo, plus ATSF usage of C&S facilities in Denver and usage by the C&S of ATSF facilities in Colorado Springs and
Pueblo. The D&RGW was dragged kicking and screaming into the JOA in 1918 by the USRA. One notable change to the JOA are the new legal parties, ie BNSF and the UP.
I have copies of all the JOAs bar two; the 1898 and a 1964 renewal (for legal reasons I cannot even view this!)
Any thoughts on how I can tackle this dilemma?
I guess I need to hire a researcher with access to the C&S vaults (in Chicago?)
Mark Sellars
South Australia
On Thursday, 25 July 2019, 8:43:10 am ACST, Rupert Gamlen <gamlenz@hotmail.com> wrote:
These are some of the basic resources I use for on-line research.
_._,_._,_
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#57802) |
Reply To Group
| Reply To Sender
|
Mute This Topic
| New Topic _._,_._,_
|
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | [CBQ] BRHS Incorporation Status, Charlie Vlk |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [CBQ] BRHS Incorporation Status, Jerome (Jerry) Albin |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [CBQ] Magazine and book resources, HOL WAGNER |
Next by Thread: | Re: [CBQ] Magazine and book resources, Dave Lotz |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |