Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T06:24:45.542Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Environmental Activism, Locomotive Smoke, and the Corporate Response: The Case of the Pennsylvania Railroad and Chicago Smoke Control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 March 2017

David Stradling  and
Joel A. Tarr
David Stradling
Affiliation:
DAVID STRADLING is an assistant professor in the Federated Department of History at theNew Jersey Institute of Technology and Rutgers-Newark.
Joel A. Tarr
Affiliation:
JOEL A. TARR is the Richard S. Caliguri Professor of History & Policy atCarnegie Mellon University.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the early 1900s, a powerful antismoke movement in Chicago forced the Pennsylvania Railroad to develop strategies for reducing public protest against the company, limiting fines, and blocking legislation forcing railroads to electrify. The company pursued a policy of least steps, by retrofitting locomotives with ameliorative technology, through fuel substitutions, and by training firemen and engineers in efficient combustion methods. By 1909, however, pressure for electrification in Chicago intensified, and Pennsylvania managers worked to retain control over the pace of technological change. In coordination with other railroads, management attempted to obey smoke ordinances without interfering with railroad operations and profitability. Company archives reveal an earnest learning process and differences among railroad managers regarding appropriate responses to antismoke regulations.

Type
Articles
Information
Business History Review , Volume 73 , Special Issue 4: Business and the Environment , Winter 1999 , pp. 677 - 704
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For a discussion of the business history literature and its treatment of environmental questions see Rosen, Christine Meisner, “Industrial Ecology and the Greening of Business History,” Business and Economic History 26 (Autumn 1997): 123–37Google Scholar and Stine, Jeffrey K. and Tarr, Joel A., “At the Intersection of Histories,” Technology and Culture 39 (Oct. 1998): 621–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 For the problem of smoke in American cities, see Dale Grinder, R., “The Battle for Clean Air: The Smoke Problem in Post-Civil War America,” in Melosi, Martin V., ed., Pollution and Reform in American Cities, 1870–1930 (Austin, Tex., 1980), 83–104Google Scholar: Tarr, Joel A. with Lamperes, Bill, “Changing Fuel Use Behavior and Energy Transitions: The Pittsburgh Smoke Control Movement, 1940–1950,” Journal of Social History 14 (Summer 1981): 1561–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tarr, Joel A. and Zimring, Carl, “The Struggle for Smoke Control in St. Louis: Achievement and Emulation,” in Hurley, Andrew, ed., Common Fields: An Environmental History of St. Louis (St. Louis, 1997), 199–220Google Scholar; Rosen, Christine Meisner, “Businessmen Against Pollution in Late Nineteenth Century Chicago,” Business History Review 69 (1995): 351–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Platt, Harold L., “Invisible Gases: Smoke, Gender, and the Redefinition of Environmental Policy in Chicago, 1900–1920,” Planning Perspectives 10 (1995): 67–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Stradling, David, Smokestacks and Progressives: Environtmentalist, Engineers, and Air Quality in America, 1881–1951 (Baltimore, Md., 1999).Google Scholar

3 Tarr, Joel A. and Koons, Kenneth, “Railroad Smoke Control: A Case Study in the Regulation of a Mobile Pollution Source,” in Rose, Mark and Daniels, George, eds., Energy and Transport: Historical Perspectives on Policy Issues (Beverly Hills, Calif, 1982), 71–92Google Scholar, explores the issues from both the business and the regulatory perspective.

4 “Statement of Facts in Regard to Electrification of Steam Railroads in Chicago,” 5–6, prepared by the Bureau of Railway News and Statistics, and included in Slason Thompson to George L. Peck, General Manager, Pennsylvania Railroad, 15 Nov. 1909, Records of the Pennsylvania Railroad, Hagley Museum and Library, Wilmington, Delaware. See also, Linsky, Benjamin, ed., A Different Air: The Chicago Report on Stnoke Abatement (Elmsford, N.Y., 1971), 97–101.Google Scholar

5 John O'Connor, Some Engineering Phases of Pittsburgh's Stnoke Problem, Bulletin No. 8, Smoke Investigation, Mellon Institute of Industrial Research and School of Specific Industries (Pittsburgh, 1914), 71–81; Linsky, Benjamin, ed., A Different Air: The Chicago Report on Smoke Abatement (Elmsford, N.Y., 1971), 175–178.Google Scholar

6 Ibid., 175–178. American railroads had originally burned wood, but shifted to mineral fuels after the Civil War. Initially the railroad used clean-buming anthracite, but as the tracks moved further west, away from the anthracite mines in northeastern Pennsylvania, they adopted the more readily available (and hence cheaper) bituminous coal.

7 Chicago Record Herald, 1 Apr. 1908, 25 Nov. 1907. The November editorial also blamed river tugs for the smoke pall. Tugs and steamships, mobile sources like locomotives, received similar industry-wide.

8 Corliss, Carlton J., Main Line of Mid-America: The story of the Illinois Central (New York, 1950), 363–364Google Scholar.

9 This data was prepared for the Chicago Committee on Local Transportation, and is included in D.F. Crawford, General Superintendent of Motive Power to G. L. Peck, General Manager, 20 May 1910.

10 Chandler, Alfred D. Jr, The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business (Cambridge, Mass. 1977), 148–151.Google Scholar

11 Ibid., 155, 176–179; Chandler, Alfred D. Jr., Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American Industrial Enterprise (Cambridge, Mass., 1962), 38–39Google Scholar; and Burgess, George H. and Kennedy, Miles C., Centennial History of The Pennsylvania Railroad Company 1846–1946 (Philadelphia, Pa. 1949), 41–44, 219–232.Google Scholar

12 Martin, Albro, Enterprise Denied: Origins of the Decline of American Railroads, 1897–1917 (New York, 1971), 55–57.Google Scholar

13 Binder, Frederick Moore, Coal Age Empire: Pennsylvania Coal and its Utilization to 1860 (Harrisburg, Pa., 1974), 127–130.Google Scholar

14 See data prepared for the Chicago Committee on Local Transportation, in Crawford to Peck, General Manager, 20 May 1910, 3; Crawford, D. F., “The abatement of locomotive smoke,” Railway Age Gazette 53 (24 Dec. 1913): 762–765Google Scholar; and, Robinson, “Locomotive fuel,” 372–377

15 Chicago Record Herald, 24 Apr. 1902, included in G.L peck to A.M. Schoyer, 30 Apr. 1902;—to B. McKeen, 31 July 1903.

16 E.H. Walton, Superintendent of the Chicago Division of the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway, to J.F. Miller, General Superintendent, 6 Oct., 1897. J.C. Schubert, the city's Chief Smoke Inspector, reportedly sought railroad passes for political friends and retaliated against the Pennsylvania when such passes were denied as against company policy. See E.A. Dawson, Manager, Union Line, Pennsylvania Railroad Co. to L.F. Loree, General Manager, 26 Feb. 1898.

17 John C. Schubert, “Obstacles Preventing the Enforcement of City Ordinances Prohibiting Smoke,” included with S.P. Bush to L.F. Loree, General Manager, 14 Oct. 1899.

18 Ibid.; A. W. Gibbs to Charles Pugh, 11 Sept. 1903.

19 For early efforts at Altoona see for example, The Association of the Transportation Officers of the Pennsylvania Railroad, “Report of the Committee on Motive Power,” 21 Nov. 1894. PA RR Box 410, folder 14. For the Altoona research sparked by Chicago's electrification debate see D. F. Crawford, “Report of Test Made at the Altoona Testing Plant,” 15 May 1913. PA RR Box 1272.

20 Coke was especially problematic from the perspective of the Pennsylvania's motive engineers. They maintained that it would cost about 3 1/2 times as much as soft coal in regard to thermal efficiencies, requiring operational changes and special training of firemen. See David F Crawford to G.L. Peck, 20 May 1910, which includes copies of the answers prepared for the Chicago Committee on Local Transportation.

21 By 1901 the Pennsylvania controlled the largest portion of the bituminous coal trade. Sobel, Robert, The Fallen Colossus (New York, 1977), 86Google Scholar. The Pennsylvania did have access to semibituminous coal mines, at the Broad Top and Cumberland Fields, but these were small and rapidly diminishing mines. In addition, Lines West had an economic incentive to use coals much closer to Chicago, particularly the bituminous coals from Ohio, Southwestern Indiana, and Southern Illinois. Christopher Baer, Hagley Library, to David Stradling, 30 Mar. 1999.

22 A. W. Gibbs to Charles Pugh, 11 Sept. 1903

23 W.H. Scriven to Wm. Cuthbert, 25 Feb. 1911; see, data prepared for the Chicago Committee on Local Transportation, in Crawford to Peck, General Manager, 20 May 1910, 7. For a discussion of the punishment of firemen due to smoke violations see, David Stradling, “Dirty Work and a Movement for Cleanliness: Locomotive Firemen and Environmental Activists,” a paper delivered before the American Society of Environmental History, 16 Apr. 1999.

24 Gibbs, A. W., “The Smoke Nuisance in Cities” Railroad Age Gazette 5 (26 Feb. 1909): 415Google Scholar; Robinson, “Locomotive Fuel,” 373–374.

25 G.L. Peck, General Manager, Lines West of Pittsburgh [hereafter referred to as, “Lines West.”], to A.M. Schoyer, General Superintendent, Lines West, 28 Mar. 1902 and Schoyer to C.S. Sims, Superintendent, 3 Apr. 1902. See also, data prepared for the Chicago Committee on Local Transportation, in Crawford to Peck, General Manager, 20 May 1910, 7.

26 Gibbs, “The smoke nuisance in cities,” 415.

27 G.L. Peck to A.M. Schoyer, 28 Mar. 1902; Peck to Schoyer, 30 Apr. 1902.

28 Chicago Record-Herald 6 June 1902; H. R. Dering to F. J. Loesch, 18 June 1902; and W. H. Scriven to G. L. Peck, 14 Nov. 1904. In 1904, when W. H. Scriven took the helm at Pennsylvania's Chicago office, he attempted to “get on good terms” with the Smoke Inspection Bureau by taking city officials to dinner. Rail officials believed that the dinners resulted in the dismissal of several pending cases, for which Pennsylvania paid only $10 in costs. See W.H. Scriven to G.L. Peck, 14 Nov. 1904.

29 See W.H. Scriven, General Agent and Superintendent, Chicago Terminal Division to G.L. Peck, General Manager, Pennsylvania Lines West, 9 Feb. 1906.

30 The concept of “Policy-by-least-steps” is that of Krier, James E. and Ursin, Edmund, in Pollution & Policy: A Case Essay on California and Federal Experience on Motor Vehicle Air Pollution, 1940–1975 (Berkeley, Calif, 1977), 11–12.Google Scholar

31 Bezilla, Electric Traction on the Pennsylvania Railroad, 9–55; Condit, Carl W., The Port of New York: A History of the Rail and Terminal System from the beginnings to Pennsylvania Station (Chicago, 1980), 176–238.Google Scholar

32 Bezilla, Michael, Electric Traction on the Pennsylvania Railroad, (University Park, Penna., 1980), 5–6Google Scholar; Condit, Carl W., The Pioneer Stage of Railroad Electrification—Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 67:7(Philadelphia, 1977): 10–17.Google Scholar

33 Bezilla, Electric Traction on the Pennsylvania Railroad. 16–55.

34 Condit, Carl W., The Port of New York: A History of the Rail and Terminal System from the Grand Central Electrification to the Present (Chicago, 1981), 1–28.Google Scholar

35 This discussion of the electrification of the New York Central electrification is derived from Condit, Carl W., The Port of New York: A History of the Hail and Terminal System from the Grand Central Electrification to the Present (Chicago, 1981), 1–28Google Scholar. See also, Bezilla, Electric Traction on the Pennsylvania Railroad, 9–55.

36 Ibid., 18–73. The railroad began its electrified segment at Harrison, New Jersey (Manhattan Transfer) and entered New York City through a long tunnel under the Hudson River. Before the line was completed, the railroad had established an electric motive committee to make a decision between using a.c. or d.c. power. The decision was for d.c, the more conservative choice, but the issue between the two forms of power remained a matter of controversy. See Bezilla, Electric Traction on the Pennsylvania, 45–46, 91–92.

37 Gibbs, A.W., “The Smoke Nuisance in Cities,” Railroad Age Gazette 46 (1909): 412–415Google Scholar; Crawford, David F., “The Abatement of Locomotive Smoke,” Industrial World 47:2 (1913): 1095–1100.Google Scholar

38 Chicago Tribune, 12 Nov. 1908.

39 Statements Before the Committee on the District of Columbia, U.S. Senate, 18 Jan. 1907. Rea supervised the planning and construction of the Pennsylvania's tunnel extension from New Jersey into New York City's Pennsylvania Station. For biographical data on Rea, see Schotter, The Growth and Development of The Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 332–333. Rea became president of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company in 1912.

40 The Washington, D.C. tracks and station were not electrified until 1935. See “1,343 Miles of Electrified Track,” Fortun 13 (June 1936): 94–98, 152.

41 Samuel Rea to W.W. Atterbury, 26 Jan. 1907; Rea to McCrea, 30 Jan. 1907.

42 Rea instructed General Manager W. W. Atterbury to switch yard engines to coke, or even anthracite if results were not satisfactory. Road engines were to be loaded with the best grade of soft coal. Samuel Rea to W.W. Atterbury, 26 Jan. 1907.

43 Samuel Rea to W.W. Atterbury, 26 Jan. 1907; Rea to McCrea, 30 Jan. 1907.

44 A. M. Schoyer to G. L. Peck, 19 Sept. 1908; W. Heyward Myers to G. L. Peck, 10 Dec. 1909. See, Chicago Record-Herald 12, 19 Sept. 1908.

45 Bird to McCrea, 11 Aug. 1909. Bird asked McCrea, “Kindly let me know what explanation you can make after investigating this.” Scriven to Schoyer, 14 Sept. 1909.

46 The Pennsylvania did have particular problems around its 55th St. roundhouse. See, for instance, Dawson to Loree, 26 Feb. 1898; see also photograph of roundhouse in this article.

47 Chicago Record-Herald 21 Oct. 1909; “Proceedings of the Local Transportation Committee, City Council of Chicago,” 17 Nov. 1909.

48 Chicago Recard-Herald 23 Dec. 1909; 26 Mar. 1910.

49 The seven-million-dollar estimate may seem insignificant for a company with operating revenues of over $339 million, but the Pennsylvania was in the midst of investing hundreds of millions in the new New York Pennsylvania Station and the extensive tunnel and electrification projects surrounding Manhattan. The most important aspect of forced electrification in Chicago would not have been the initial investment, but the precedent that it would set for other cities. The Pennsylvania could not afford to lose control of capital investments—its ability to determine when and where equipment upgrades would take place. For revenue data see Burgess, George H. and Kennedy, Miles C., Centennial History of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 1846–1946 (Philadelphia, 1949).Google Scholar

50 Included in data prepared for the Chicago Committee on Local Transportation, pp. 6–8, in Crawford to Peck, General Manager, 20 May 1910. The IC brought members of the transportation committee to watch a demonstration of a so-called “smokeless engine,” but these trials produced only mixed results.

51 “On the Consideration of the Proposed Ordinance Requiring All Railroad Trains … operated within Seven Miles of the Court House in the City of Chicago to be Propelled or operated by power other than that of steam or in a Manner which will not propose smoke or noxious gases. Proceedings of the City Council of the City of Chicago, Mar. 1911. There was some concern over the supposed increased risk from electricity. In Sept. 1910 the New York Central powerhouse had exploded, causing over a $2 million loss. See Loesch, Scofield & Loesch, Solicitors, Law Department of Lines West, to Joseph Wood, First Vice President [Lines West], 21 Sept. 1910.

52 “Proceedings of the Local Transportation Committee,” 17 Nov. 1909; Chicago Record Herald 18 Nov. 1909; D. C. Moon to G. L. Peck, et. al., 28 Jan. 1910; and “Report of Meeting of Railroad Officials Held at Chicago,” 27 Feb. 1911. To encourage activism, some lines apparently gave men S5.00 per day in expenses, meaning that employees made more money lobbying than they did at work.

53 Chicago Record Herald 13 Dec. 1910; Chicago Association of Commerce, Smoke Abatement and Electrification of Railway Terminals in Chicago (Chicago, 1915), 19–23.

54 G. L. Peck to Joseph Wood, 24 Sept. 1910.

55 Ibid.

56 G. L. Peck to Joseph Wood, 28 Feb. 1911; W. D. Cantillon to G. L. Peck, 11 Apr. 1911. In 1913, the railroads were spending about $15,000 per month on the CAC study through the GMA. The costs were dhided among the roads using a formula of track mileage and number of passenger cars entering the city. See, W.S. Tinsman to B. McKeen, 18 Apr. 1913.

57 W. A. Garrett to G. L. Peck, 20 Oct. 1911; W. S. Tinsman to Peck, 23 Nov. 1912; and Peck to Scriven, 26 Mar. 1912. For CAC questionnaires see PA RR, box 1272.

58 Loesch, Scofield & Loesch to W. H. Scriven, 17 Feb., 10 Mar., 21 Apr., 2 Aug. 1911; and Scriven to Loesch, Scofield & Loesch, 28 Feb. 1911. For Bird's position, see “Smoke Laid to Roads,” a statement by Inspector Bird to the Western Society of Engineers, in PA R.R. box 1271.

59 Rea to Turner, 20 Aug. 1912.

60 W. A. Garrett to Cantillon, et. al., 18 Sept. 1912; M. K. Barnum, et. al. to Chairman, GMA, 24 Sept. 1912; and minutes of the “Joint Smoke Inspection Bureau of Roads Operating in Chicago,” 18 Dec.1912. PA RR, box 1271.

61 The Ringelmann Chart included four checked boxes, which when held at arms length created shades of gray that could be compared to emissions.

62 M.K. Barnum, et. al. to D.F. Crawford, 16 Dec. 1912; J. H. Lewis, “Joint Smoke Inspection Bureau,” 28 Dec. 1912; and General Manager, Lines West to W.S. Tinsman, Chairman, General Managers' Association of Chicago, 11 Feb. 1913.

63 D. F. Crawford, et. al., “Report of Sub-Committee, Mechanical Officials, Re. Smoke Prevention Devices,” 15 May 1913; David Crawford, “Report of Tests Made at the Altoona Testing Plant,” 15 Mav 1913; W. S. Tinsman to All Members, 29 July 1913; and Crawford to McKeen, 11 Feb. 1914.

64 Monnett to W. J. Jackson, 15 Aug. 1911; Crawford to McKeen, 11 Feb. 1914.

65 Bezilla, Electric Traction on the Pennsylvania Railroad, 85.

66 McKeen to R.E. McCarthy and E.T. Whiter, 30 Jan. 1914; E.T. Whiter to McKeen, 7 Feb. 1914.

67 David F. Crawford to Benjamin McKeen, 11 Feb. 1914; Benjamin McKeen to R.E. McCarty and E.T. Whiter, 12 Feb. 1914; and McKeen to G.L. Peck, 13 Feb. 1914.

68 McKeen to E.T. Whiter, 27 Apr. 1914.

69 McKeen to Peck, 13 Feb. 1914; McKeen to Crawford, 3 Apr. 1914; R.L.H. Blair to R.E. McCarty and E.T. Whiter, 15 May 1914; and Blair to Crawford, 15 June 1914.

70 Crawford to McKeen, 11 Feb. 1914; McKeen to Crawford, 3 Apr. 1914; McKeen to R. E. McCarty, 27 Apr. 1914; H. L. H. Blair to R. E. McCarty, 15 May 1914; Thomas Donnelley to Samuel Rea, 10 Aug. 1914; and Rea to J. J. Turner, 12 Aug. 1914.

71 Chicago Tribune, 12, 13, 20 May 1913.

72 David Crawford to B. McKeen, 27 Feb. 1915.

73 Chicago Association of Commerce, Smoke Abatement and Electrification of Railway Terminals in Chicago (Chicago, 1915)Google Scholar. For a critical review of the report by the Chicago Department of Smoke Inspection, see “General Review of the Report of the Chicago Association of Commerce Committee on Electrification and Smoke Abatement” (Chicago, 1915), located in the Chicago Municipal Reference Library. The review concluded that railroads contributed substantially to Chicago's smoke burden, that electrification would reduce the cost of operating railroads, and that it would “increase the value of railroad and other properties and will greatly increase the suburban traffic.” I am grateful to Frank Uekoetter for furnishing me with a copy of this report.

74 “Where Smoke Really Comes From: The Truth About the Smoke Nuisance,” reprinted by the Publicity Department of the Pennsylvania Railroad System from Railway and Locomotive Engineering (Jan., 1916), 3–4. The Cincinnati Times-Star ran an editorial denouncing the railroad for this distortion and said it brought “under suspicion the sincerity of the Pennsylvania railroad in the abatement of the smoke nuisance.” See, Cincinnati Times-Star 15 Mar. 1916. General Manager Benjamin McKeen was disturbed by the editorial and asked David Crawford to send representatives from Motive Power to discuss the matter with editor Charles Taft. Benjamin McKeen to David Crawford, 7 Apr., Crawford to McKeen, 29 Apr. 1916.

75 J. W. Higgins, “General Managers' Association, Circular No. 2722,” 16 Jan. 1918, PA RR, box 1279.

76 Platt, “Invisible gases,” 67–68.

77 The Pennsylvania, as well as other roads, had undergone the expense of track elevation during the years since 1895. See “Statement of Facts in Regard to Electrification of Steam Railroads in Chicago,” in Thompson, to Peck, General Manager, Pennsylvania Railroad, 15 Nov. 1909.

78 “The steam locomotive builders proved extraordinary adept at managing incremental technological change, continually refining and improving their steam locomotive designs, often by working in close cooperation with railroad motive power officials who were fiercely loyal to ‘their’ steam locomotive supplier.” See Churella, Albert J., From Steam to Diesel: Managerial Customs and Organizational Capabilities in the Twentieth-Century American Locomotive Industry (Princeton, N.J., 1998), 147–48.Google Scholar

79 Bezilla, Electric Traction on the Pennsylvania Railroad, 35–55, 92–93.

80 This paragraph is based upon OTA, Industry, Technology, and the Environment, 229–261; Porter, Michael and Linde, Class van der, “Green and Competitive: Ending the Stalemate,” Harvard Business Review 120 (Sept./Oct, 1995)Google Scholar; Hart, Stuart L., “Strategies for a Sustainable World,” Harvard Business Review 122 (Jan., Feb. 1997); 67–76Google Scholar; and Bryon Swift, “Winning from Innovation: Perspectives on Business, Policy and Legal Factors That May Affect the Porter Hypothesis,” Environmental Law Institute (Feb., 1999).

81 The Pennsylvania electrified the passenger route from Philadelphia to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania in the late 1930s. Bezilla, Electric Traction on the Pennsylvania Railroad, 157–159.