C&O Trackage Rights over the N&W between Glen Jean (Waverly), and Valley Crossing (Columbus), Ohio

[NW Mailing List]

Thanks to the list for the various examples of joint trackage elsewhere in the U.S. I was imprecise in the first question below. I meant ask about other arrangements like this on the N&W and during the timeframe of the C&O/N&W arrangement in Ohio's Scioto Valley.

The purpose of that “unique" shared-trackage question, to be honest, was to serve as a prompt that might lead a broader discussion of the second and third questions. It always struck me as odd that two railroads that were competitors when it came to coal field access would work together in this way (and at that time). I suspect that money and political power had a lot to do with it - after all, the Van Sweringens were involved!

One 1925 article that mentions the trackage rights over the N&W has a stand out headline that reads:

VAN SWERINGEN’S FEEL OUT UNCLE SAM
—
WILL ASK FOR PERMISSION TO BUILD C.& O. THRU HERE
—
Must Construct Line From Waverly to Hocking Valley Crossing to Complete Billion Dollar Merger of the Most Gigantic Railroad System in Country


Matt Goodman
Columbus, Ohio

> On Feb 5, 2021, at 12:49 PM, NW Mailing List via NW-Mailing-List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org> wrote:
> 
> As a follow on to my previous question about specific locations where the C&O used N&W tracks (feedback still appreciated!), I have a couple more.
> 
> Were the C&O trackage rights a unique arrangement for the N&W? Or did it occur elsewhere?
> Was the railroad legally obligated to provide the access?
> What prompted the hasty departure from the arrangement and the consequent hasty construction of the extension? 
> 
> On the last point, contemporary Circleville Herald (newspaper) articles reported that the C&O was conducting surveys at least as early as 1924, and finalized it’s route though the Circleville area in 1925 (though final property acquisitions and condemnations were occurring into early 1927). Late, considering the line was operational only some ten months later!
> 
> As background, another 1924 article states that “a five-year lease held by Van Sweringen interests” had expired and that the C&O announced it had closed a 99-year lease extension - something the N&W denied. The article goes on to state that outside observers (described as “Railroad men”) thought that such a lease would necessitate the addition of two more tracks to accommodate the traffic, making four tracks from Waverly to Columbus. From a practical standpoint, this ultimately occurred, as the lines run parallel to one another north of Circleville, excepting for C&O’s deviations around Ashville and Obetz.
> 
> I’m speculating that a breakdown in lease talks led to the N&W yelling at the C&O to get out of the house! I wonder in retrospect whether the C&O’s bypassing of every town along the route was partly to expedite the construction process, at the cost of new business along the route. Some heavy shippers in Circleville were looking forward to, and agitating for, a local freight house to allow them more shipping options.
> 
> My earlier questions are below, for those who haven’t seen them. Any pointers to publications that covered this arrangement would be appreciated!
> 
> Matt Goodman
> Columbus, Ohio, US
> 
>> On Jan 28, 2021, at 4:11 PM, NW Mailing List via NW-Mailing-List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org <mailto:nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> I learned something last night. I came across an item in the archives showing how the C&ON and the N&W connected at Greggs prior to the completion of the Chesapeake and Hocking extension between Greggs and Valley Crossing in 1927.
>> 
>> https://www.nwhs.org/archivesdb/detail.php?ID=101119 <https://www.nwhs.org/archivesdb/detail.php?ID=101119>
>> 
>> I had always assumed that the two railroads joined up on the hill, but this map shows that the connection took place somewhere on the fill approaching the bridge over the Scioto.
>> 
>> That realization prompted two questions about this connection and its operation:
>> Did the C&O build a bridge parallel to #1103 on it’s approach to the N&W?
>> How was the movement from the C&ON to the N&W (and vice versa) controlled? 
>> Was there another tower on the east side of the river, or was it controlled remotely from Glen Jean?
>> Was this connection fully interlocked, or more simply signaled? 
>> 
>> On a related note, I found some extra proposed tracks for the C&ON at Renick (south end of Chillicothe), apparently for interchange with the B&O SW. Was it typical during this time period to have two sets of facilities at every interchange for the use of the C&ON? If so, why this approach rather than sharing existing N&W facilities?
>> 
>> https://www.nwhs.org/archivesdb/detail.php?ID=106287 <https://www.nwhs.org/archivesdb/detail.php?ID=106287>
>> 
>> I’m sure this joint track usage has been covered in the Arrow or other places. Any pointers would be welcome!
>> 
>> Matt Goodman
>> Columbus, Ohio, US
>>  
>> ________________________________________
>> NW-Mailing-List at nwhs.org <mailto:NW-Mailing-List at nwhs.org>
>> To change your subscription go to
>> http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-mailing-list
>> Browse the NW-Mailing-List archives at
>> http://list.nwhs.org/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/
> 
> ________________________________________
> NW-Mailing-List at nwhs.org
> To change your subscription go to
> http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-mailing-list
> Browse the NW-Mailing-List archives at
> http://list.nwhs.org/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist6.pair.net/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/attachments/20210210/3a85a878/attachment-0001.html>