Van Buren tower

[arkrail]

Does anyone have the date when Van Buren tower was opened, or when the plant was automated?

Thanks,

Bill Pollard

[Coonskin]

Hi Bill:

Van Buren, Arkansas? If so, didn't know it ever had a tower? If VB, AR, what era would that have been?

[SteveM]

Bill, I haven't seen a tower on a track chart or anything on Mike Condren's site that I can remember. There was just a little telephone shack in 1988, which I suspect Coonskin is very familiar with.

[murphy millican]

No foundations exist if it existed. I was crawling all around the railroad yards last week with a couple of my friends. I do know a small wooden shed used to sit near the ditch north of the crossing.:)
Ship it on the Frisco!!!



Murphy Millican.

[gbmott]

Bill

I have never really thought about it, but it would be logical that there must have been a tower protecting the MP/SLSF crossing at one point, but there was no trace of it by the late '40's when I first became conscious of such things, nor have I ever heard anyone make reference to such. I'm not even sure when automated interlockings first came into general use -- something I suppose I need to research.

Gordon

[Karl]

An interlocker is shown in this ETT. Looking in the "TELEGRAPH" Column, one doesn't see a symbol for which shift it's open, i.e., "D", "DN", or "2S". Was it closed by 1939, or was it a MP Interlocker?

http://www.frisco.org/vb/showthread.php?t=1435&highlight=central+div

[gbmott]

Karl

Great to see that timetable, but I'm not sure that it answers the mystery as "interlocker" could refer either to a manual interlocking, i.e. tower, or to an automatic interlocking. The same reference to "interlocker" is made next south at "FSSRR Crossing" (the Fort Smith Suburban Railroad, a MoPac subsidiary known in Fort Smith simply as The Suburban) which, as with Van Buren, was an automatic interlocking by the late-40's. The absence of any reference to hours in the 1939 timetable doesn't actually rule out anything since it could either be a 24-hour manned tower or an automatic interlocking which, by definition, is 24-hour.

One thing that I am pretty sure was not the case was for the VB crossing to have been controlled by the MoPac's CTC operator at Greenwood Junction.

Gordon

[john]

Here's the interlocker information for Van Buren from the Missouri Pacific, Central Division Special Instructions No. 8 effective Jan 1, 1944 - replacing No. 7 dated Jan 1, 1942.

[gbmott]

Thanks John, that confirms that at least by 1944 it was an automatic interlocking. Does anyone have earlier Central Division timetables, either SLSF or MoPac, with a similar listing?

Gordon

[john]

I don't see this information in the few early (1930's) copies of either Frisco or MoPac ETTs which I have. The MoPac information posted above came from the "Supplementary to the Uniform Code of Operating Rules" booklet which seems to have been issued every other year. Earlier ones should provide the information through the 1930's, if someone has access to one.

John

[john]

The situation at Van Buren seems to have been somewhat complicated in the early days.

In addition to the Frisco/MoPac (Iron Mtn) crossing there was the Frisco (swing) bridge on the Arkansas River to consider and the fact that MoPac trains were still using it (the bridge) as part of their Fort Smith Branch. Even under yard limits rules you would think some additional control over all this would be necessary. Was it possible that the operation of the bridge was combined with control of the crossing?

Special instructions in the Frisco Central Division ETT (#15) for 1906 as follows:

All trains will look out carefully at ST. L. I. M. & S. R'y Junction and at St. L. I M. & S. R'y crossing for the trains of that Company using the Frisco Main Line.

All trains or engines crossing Arkansas River Bridge at Van Buren must come to a full stop at the stop board. if draw is closed, engineer will give two short whistles and then proceed. If draw is open, a red flag by day and a red light by night will be displayed. Engine dampers must be kept closed while on the bridge.

John

[tomd6]

The Interstate Commerce Commission Engineering Field notes for the Frisco Valuation Survey, dated October 1918,do not show an interlocking plant at Van Buren.
The personal data book of L.M.Cantrell, Central Division Superintendent 1926- 1936, contains a very detailed list of interlockers. There is no listing for a Frisco interlocker at Van Buren.
As a business matter the MP had to pay per car and engine charges when crossing the Frisco bridge.It would seem more logical to use MP tracks and the Helen Gould bridge for Fort Smith traffic rather than operate over the Frisco bridge. Obviously this would not apply in the case of diversions and post 1970 when the Gould Bridge was demolished.

[john]

I'm sorry about the large file size and poor quality, but here is the appropriate page from the Iron Mountain (MoPac) Central Division ETT #5 of May 1907.

This late after the construction of the Missouri Pacific System's bridge at Fort Smith, the timetable still shows first class traffic on the Frisco bridge. (a quicker shorter route east than the Greenwood Jct. route)

John

[gbmott]

John

This gets really interesting! Several things about the 1907 TT page you copied. First, I am assuming that "Cherokee Jct" is what later became known as "Greenwood Jct". It appears, then, that Iron Mtn trains 103 and 105 from KC to Little Rock were routed Coffeeville-Cherokee Jct-Greenwood Branch to Fort Smith-Fort Smith Branch to Van Buren. That would be the most direct routing for a timetable south train to take.

In the opposite direction, train 106 appears to have operated from Van Buren across the SLSF bridge to Fort Smith, thence Gould Bridge to Cherokee Jct while 104 operated from Van Buren to Cherokee Jct and Gould Bridge to Fort Smith, then turned around as 123 and retraced its route to Cherokee Jct. This latter would explain the note "Number 123 is superior to 104". I can only assume that train 104 was a lower priority and the Iron Mtn was willing to accept a slower schedule to avoid the trackage rights fee on the Frisco.

I have to admit that this is an operation of which I was completely ignorant and that I find very interesting indeed. In earlier posts there were detailed maps of this area posted dating from about this time and they clearly show that the connecting track between the SLIM&S and the SLSF was in the geographical SE quadrant which would have been correct for the moves outlined above.

The only fly in the ointment to what I propose above is note C 2. under the Fort Smith Branch section of the timetable where it says "Between Van Buren and St.L.& S.F. Junction all trains will be governed by St.L.& S.F. Time Table". This would ordinarily make me think that it refers to the Frisco track between St.L & S.F. Jct and the Frisco's Van Buren station. The problem is that times are shown for the Iron Mtn trains at "Van Buren" without any kind of a note to indicate that it means the Iron Mtn's Van Buren station. For that matter, why would the Iron Mtn timetable even show the Frisco's line between St.L & S. F. Jct. and the Frisco's VB station? This part has me baffled.


As for the crossing, it appears from earlier posts that in the early days it may have been unprotected and trains simply proceeded on the basis of visually check that there were no conflicting moves. It still leaves open whether between that time and the establishment of an automatic interlocking there had been a manual interlocking.

This is getting interesting (and fun)!

Gordon

[john]

In the 1885 St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co. annual report was the following comment. "The total amount required to pay interest on the bonds (for the bridge company), together with the cost of maintenance and taxes will be about $36,000 per annum, of which the Little Rock & Fort Smith Railway Company will contribute not less than one-third under a contract with the Bridge Company running thirty years from April 1, 1886."

I had not really questioned what track was referenced in C2. I just thought Van Buren was the north bank of the Arkansas River (the junction on the north side of the SLSF bridge) and the SLSF junction was where the original LR & FS (later Fort Smith Branch of the Missouri Pacific which we are discussing) and Frisco tracks "split" just a mile or so south of the bridge.

Also - as late as March 1925 the Fort Smith Branch of the Missouri Pacific still appears in their Official List of Officers, Agents, Stations and Mileage book.

0.00 - Fort Smith Branch Connection
0.10 - St. L - S.F. North Connection
1.57 - St. L - S.F. South Connection (presumably with the bridge between the connections) and so on down to the Ft. Smith (MoPac) depot at 5.26.

John

[john]

I think every crossing (diamond) that I have seen was controlled by the first railroad constructed. This seems to have been the case here at Van Buren as well. The Little Rock & Fort Smith got through Van Buren first. It ran from Little Rock to Cherokee, IT - now Moffett, OK - across the Arkansas River west of Fort Smith in the 1870's. The Frisco didn't arrive until about 1882. Was this practice universal? Did the first railroad always get to control the crossing?

[gbmott]

That was certainly normally the case, with the junior road also responsible for the on-going maintenance of the crossing. This was always open to negotiation and there are many examples where the junior road has control, usually because they have the preponderance of traffic, but this is because it has been agreed upon.

As for the Iron Mountain, unless I am mistaken they actually built illegally in what was then Indian Territory and had to dismantle the road from the state line to Moffit and that is what led them to enter into the agreement with the SLSF to use their bridge.

Gordon

[john]

I have confused at least one person (probably a lot of people) so here is an attempt to explain the early railroad layout at Fort Smith - Van Buren, AR.

The first railroad was the Little Rock and Fort Smith which ran west from Little Rock, Arkansas, through Van Buren and on around the bend in the Arkansas River to a point on the River Bank west of Fort Smith (the depot was called Cherokee). It is NOT shown on the accompanying map. This original LR & FS was completed about 1876. Trains could not cross the river and passengers and cargo crossed into Fort Smith by small boat. The Cherokee Nation (in Indian Territory, now Oklahoma) immediately raised a fuss because the last mile of this was on their lands (without permission). In January 1879 the rails were pulled in the Indian Territory and track laid from a point on the south bank of the Arkansas directly south of Van Buren to Fort Smith (all in Sebastian County, AR). This is the LR & FS shown on the accompanying map.

The LR & FS trains now crossed the Arkansas River (with great difficulty) on the first of two transfer boats (rail ferry). The transfer operated just west of where the SLSF bridge was later built and the LR & FS track made a loop around low ground on the south bank of the Arkansas to eventually tie into the track shown on the map. (By the date this map was drawn the "loop" had been removed.) In 1882 the Frisco arrived at Van Buren and laid track parallel to the LR & FS track into Fort Smith south of the River. Both of these lines are still there - still in use today. The Frisco also used the LR & FS ferry to cross the River. Arrangements were started to build a joint LR & FS - Frisco bridge at Van Buren. THEN, Jay Gould got control of the LR & FS and the good relations between it and the Frisco fell apart.

Strings were pulled and the Frisco suddenly discovered new problems building both its Van Buren bridge (LR & FS pulled out of the partnership) and building south across the Indian Territory to Paris, Texas. It took several years to sort things out. Eventually the Frisco Bridge was finished (early 1886). The bridge replaced the transfer boat and both railroads used it to enter Fort Smith from Van Buren. At this time there was no other way into - out of Fort Smith by rail.

Eventually both the Frisco and the MoPac System got what they wanted - the right to cross the Indian Territory. The track to Cherokee, IT was relaid on the original LR & FS roadbed and a new bridge (shown on the map) finished in 1891. This is the Cherokee Branch (or Greenwood Branch) on the Missouri Pacific System.

The "direct" link between Van Buren and Fort Smith is the Fort Smith Branch on the Missouri Pacific System. It only operated over the SLSF on its northern end, to use the SLSF Van Buren bridge. I am trying to avoid creating further confusion by using the term Missouri Pacific although several different corporate names were involved on the Missouri Pacific side.

Hope this helps, John

[tomd6]

I have confused at least one person (probably a lot of people) so here is an attempt to explain the early railroad layout at Fort Smith - Van Buren, AR.

The first railroad was the Little Rock and Fort Smith which ran west from Little Rock, Arkansas, through Van Buren and on around the bend in the Arkansas River to a point on the River Bank west of Fort Smith (the depot was called Cherokee). It is NOT shown on the accompanying map. This original LR & FS was completed about 1876. Trains could not cross the river and passengers and cargo crossed into Fort Smith by small boat. The Cherokee Nation (in Indian Territory, now Oklahoma) immediately raised a fuss because the last mile of this was on their lands (without permission). In January 1879 the rails were pulled in the Indian Territory and track laid from a point on the south bank of the Arkansas directly south of Van Buren to Fort Smith (all in Sebastian County, AR). This is the LR & FS shown on the accompanying map.

The LR & FS trains now crossed the Arkansas River (with great difficulty) on the first of two transfer boats (rail ferry). The transfer operated just west of where the SLSF bridge was later built and the LR & FS track made a loop around low ground on the south bank of the Arkansas to eventually tie into the track shown on the map. (By the date this map was drawn the "loop" had been removed.) In 1882 the Frisco arrived at Van Buren and laid track parallel to the LR & FS track into Fort Smith south of the River. Both of these lines are still there - still in use today. The Frisco also used the LR & FS ferry to cross the River. Arrangements were started to build a joint LR & FS - Frisco bridge at Van Buren. THEN, Jay Gould got control of the LR & FS and the good relations between it and the Frisco fell apart.

Strings were pulled and the Frisco suddenly discovered new problems building both its Van Buren bridge (LR & FS pulled out of the partnership) and building south across the Indian Territory to Paris, Texas. It took several years to sort things out. Eventually the Frisco Bridge was finished (early 1886). The bridge replaced the transfer boat and both railroads used it to enter Fort Smith from Van Buren. At this time there was no other way into - out of Fort Smith by rail.

Eventually both the Frisco and the MoPac System got what they wanted - the right to cross the Indian Territory. The track to Cherokee, IT was relaid on the original LR & FS roadbed and a new bridge (shown on the map) finished in 1891. This is the Cherokee Branch (or Greenwood Branch) on the Missouri Pacific System.

The "direct" link between Van Buren and Fort Smith is the Fort Smith Branch on the Missouri Pacific System. It only operated over the SLSF on its northern end, to use the SLSF Van Buren bridge. I am trying to avoid creating further confusion by using the term Missouri Pacific although several different corporate names were involved on the Missouri Pacific side.

Hope this helps, John

I have a few problems with your facts.
1. C.P. Huntington and Jay Gould acquired a controlling interest in the Frisco in Jaunuary 1882 (The Railroad Gazette, January 27, 1882, p 64.) If they controlled the Frisco and the Little Rock & Fort Smith why would they want to damage both railroads ?
2. I have done extensive research on the Van Buren bridge. I have seen no mention in the press or Frisco annual reports of a joint Frisco-Little Rock & Fort Smith railroad bridge at Van Buren. There is no mention of Little Rock & Fort Smith involvement with the bridge in the Frisco Annual reports for 1882 and 1883. One reason may be that the Frisco was able to issue bonds in the name of the Fort Smith & Van Buren Bridge co to cover the $450,00 cost of building the bridge. My impression is that the Little Rock & Fort Smith was a weaker railroad since it was in and out of receivership as it sputtered from Little Rock to Fort Smith. The Frisco corporate records at the Western Historical Manuscript collection at Rolla ,Mo refer to a contract executed between the Frisco and the Little Rock & Fort Smith. I wonder if this covered use and debt service on the Van Buren Bridge by the Little Rock & Fort Smith.


4. The "strings" you mention were not in fact caused by tha acts of others as seen in the following recapitulation of facts.
The Frisco reached Van Buren, AR in November 1882. It used the steam launch of the Little Rock & Fort Smith to ferry cars to Fort Smith. The ferry could carry four passenger cars or two freight cars per trip.

The Frisco Railroad bridge at Van Buren did not open for service until February 1886. The Department of War had jurisdiction over navigable rivers such as the Arkansas. The Corps of Engineers and the Frisco had two disputes that delayed the bridge.(Frisco 1883 Annual Report, page 10)
(a) The Frisco’s original bridge plans were modified by a board of engineers. The Frisco did not agree with the changes. In 1884 the railroad company proposed to construct at its own expense any work which might subsequently be found necessary for the maintenance of navigation. The Corp of Engineers agreed.
(b) A portion of the Frisco’s alignment crossed the long inactive Fort Smith Military Reservation. The War Department did not agree to the Frisco plan. The War Department plan included twenty four acres of Federal property and required the Frisco to build a stone wall that would make the Fort Smith Military Reservation a completely enclosed fort. The War Department plan was approved by the House of Representatives and US Senate and signed into law by the President on February 20, 1883. (Senate Act 2239) Congressional Record 1883, page 2961.

Railroads building through Indian Territory had to obtain congressional approval. The first railroad to build through Indian Territory was the MKT in 1870. Congress than closed the doors and for many the MKT had a monopoly on Kansas-Texas traffic. Congress then lifted the blanket ban on new railroad building in Indian Territory. On August 2, 1882 the Frisco obtained Congressional approval to build through the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations subject to the following conditions:
(a) Posting a $500,000 surety bond;
(b) Quarterly fee of $750 for the benefit of each nation’s schools divided 75% for the Cherokees and 25% for the Choctaws;
(d) Filing a map of the completed route within two years.
The Act of August 2, 1882 gave the Frisco two years to complete the road.

The Frisco did not complete the road within two years. Frisco President Edward F. Winslow then approached the Department of the Interior, and President of the United States by letter in February 1886. Winslow explained that the Frisco failure was due to a dispute with the Corps of Engineers that delayed the construction of the bridge that in turn delayed construction of the Indian Territory line.
On June 1, 1886 a bill was signed into law that gave the Frisco an additional two years to comply with the legislation passed on August 2, 1882.

[john]

Lots of folks sometimes have problems with my facts and interpretations so you are in good company. I'll try to address the points you presented in order.

1. I can not now remember exactly when Gould obtained final control over the Little Rock and Fort Smith. It may have been a little bit earlier than I implied. I doubt that every detail of every railroad was immediately, or ever, brought to Gould's personal attention but there can be little doubt that he was very interested in and involved with railroads (and coal) in the Fort Smith area. He made a personal visit to his company's coal mines at Jenny Lind, AR (south of Fort Smith) soon after the first opened. The visit was on March 15, 1889 - how many communities of that (small) size can claim that? I'm also not certain that the early poor financial condition of the LR & FS was as relevant after Gould assumed control as it would have been earlier. The LR & FS seems to have been quite important to Gould. (Source: The Life and Legend of Jay Gould, page 373) Under his reign a lot of improvements were made.

It is true that Huntington and Gould, working together, managed to obtain about 1/2 interest in the Frisco in early 1882. My understanding is that this was to prevent the Atlantic & Pacific grants (which Frisco held) from falling under the control of the Santa Fe. This might have allowed that railroad to expand eastward in competition with the Gould and Huntington systems. Control of the Frisco blocked a mutual threat to both men's empires. I think that it's a bit of a stretch to think that the Frisco was now cooperating with Gould's railroads or that those cared what happened to the Frisco. In fact some real historians (and I'm certainly not one) seem to think that this arrangement did a great deal of harm to the Frisco and that Gould was definitely not looking out for its interests.

2. There are articles in some of the early 1880's Fort Smith (or Van Buren?) newspapers discussing a proposed joint LR & FS/Frisco bridge at Van Buren. At the moment I don't have that information in front of me and I certainly can't provide the names and dates from memory, but I have it filed somewhere and I'll try to locate it and post it here shortly.

3. I have no answer for this one.

4. The N. D. Munson (LR & FS transfer boat at Van Buren) could indeed carry two passenger or four freight cars ( I think you may have this switched, size - not weight - seems to have been the primary limitation). Unfortunately the vessel was too large (in draft) for the job and often rendered unusable by chronic low water in the Arkansas River. There is a photo of the Munson on page 22 of the Fort Smith Historical Society Inc. JOURNAL Vol VI, #2, Sep 1982, with Van Buren in the background. It was replaced with the Harold B which was at best barely usable. The lighter draft Harold B only had one (not two) steam engine and was a smaller craft. It was stretched pretty thin attempting to handle the rolling stock of two railroads and contending with the currents in the River on its limited power. Low water was still often a problem. There is a reference to problems with this second transfer boat on page 9 of the 1884 Frisco Annual Report.

Frisco agents applied to the Choctaw tribal council for permission to cross their Nation in 1881. They were granted a right of way. Some have suspected that bribes or other shady practices were involved. This was the intended route south from Fort Smith. At the time that it was granted most authorities (not everyone) seem to have considered this a perfectly acceptable exercise of tribal rights based on treaties which granted the Choctaw autonomy over their own land. Almost immediately a debate on this subject sprang up in Congress. The end result was a law that effectively undercut the previous treaties and killed whatever rights to grant eminent domain across their land the Choctaw (for that matter any tribe) may have held in their "nation". The rights now rested solely with Congress. You made a reference to this in your statement about the MKT. Jay Gould has been implicated in published works, as he was in newspapers at the time, as the man behind these actions. Gould had good reason to want to keep Texas to himself and the Frisco out. I believe this would be an acceptable example of someone with wealth and power "pulling strings" to arrange matters to benefit himself at the expense of the Frisco. This matter was of great interest in Fort Smith and references to what was (and was alleged to be) going on can be found in newspapers from that era.

About the time the Frisco finally obtained its permission from Congress to build across the Choctaw Nation, Gould obtained partial control over the railroad. Almost immediately the Frisco's efforts to build south began to flounder. I realize that several different reasons (some financial) have been given for the failure to complete the line at this time, but any and all could have been overcome if the will to do so had been great enough.

Frisco could have built an Arkansas River bridge at any time - permission to cross was never denied - as long as they were willing to build it where the government wanted it. It's true that some additional cost would have been involved, but probably not nearly as much as the Frisco claimed. It's also difficult to see why other problems like the old fort at Fort Smith were insurmountable obstacles for the Frisco. They could easily have routed their line around it (to the east). In fact the line did turn east almost immediately after it passed the fort grounds. I think a strong case could be made that Frisco unnecessarily allowed the original allotted time to built south to run out. Again, was Gould behind this???

As shown above I do consider the Frisco (or any other railroad) Annual Reports to be acceptable sources, but in some respects they are little better than newspaper articles and need to be taken with a grain of salt. Great effort was always expended to place the railroad company and the actions of its officers and directors in a most favorable light and you are always only going to get one side of the story.

John

[tomd6]

Lots of folks sometimes have problems with my facts and interpretations so you are in good company. I'll try to address the points you presented in order.

1. I can not now remember exactly when Gould obtained final control over the Little Rock and Fort Smith. It may have been a little bit earlier than I implied. I doubt that every detail of every railroad was immediately, or ever, brought to Gould's personal attention but there can be little doubt that he was very interested in and involved with railroads (and coal) in the Fort Smith area. He made a personal visit to his company's coal mines at Jenny Lind, AR (south of Fort Smith) soon after the first opened. The visit was on March 15, 1889 - how many communities of that (small) size can claim that? I'm also not certain that the early poor financial condition of the LR & FS was as relevant after Gould assumed control as it would have been earlier. The LR & FS seems to have been quite important to Gould. (Source: The Life and Legend of Jay Gould, page 373) Under his reign a lot of improvements were made.

It is true that Huntington and Gould, working together, managed to obtain about 1/2 interest in the Frisco in early 1882. My understanding is that this was to prevent the Atlantic & Pacific grants (which Frisco held) from falling under the control of the Santa Fe. This might have allowed that railroad to expand eastward in competition with the Gould and Huntington systems. Control of the Frisco blocked a mutual threat to both men's empires. I think that it's a bit of a stretch to think that the Frisco was now cooperating with Gould's railroads or that those cared what happened to the Frisco. In fact some real historians (and I'm certainly not one) seem to think that this arrangement did a great deal of harm to the Frisco and that Gould was definitely not looking out for its interests.

2. There are articles in some of the early 1880's Fort Smith (or Van Buren?) newspapers discussing a proposed joint LR & FS/Frisco bridge at Van Buren. At the moment I don't have that information in front of me and I certainly can't provide the names and dates from memory, but I have it filed somewhere and I'll try to locate it and post it here shortly.

3. I have no answer for this one.

4. The N. D. Munson (LR & FS transfer boat at Van Buren) could indeed carry two passenger or four freight cars ( I think you may have this switched, size - not weight - seems to have been the primary limitation). Unfortunately the vessel was too large (in draft) for the job and often rendered unusable by chronic low water in the Arkansas River. There is a photo of the Munson on page 22 of the Fort Smith Historical Society Inc. JOURNAL Vol VI, #2, Sep 1982, with Van Buren in the background. It was replaced with the Harold B which was at best barely usable. The lighter draft Harold B only had one (not two) steam engine and was a smaller craft. It was stretched pretty thin attempting to handle the rolling stock of two railroads and contending with the currents in the River on its limited power. Low water was still often a problem. There is a reference to problems with this second transfer boat on page 9 of the 1884 Frisco Annual Report.

Frisco agents applied to the Choctaw tribal council for permission to cross their Nation in 1881. They were granted a right of way. Some have suspected that bribes or other shady practices were involved. This was the intended route south from Fort Smith. At the time that it was granted most authorities (not everyone) seem to have considered this a perfectly acceptable exercise of tribal rights based on treaties which granted the Choctaw autonomy over their own land. Almost immediately a debate on this subject sprang up in Congress. The end result was a law that effectively undercut the previous treaties and killed whatever rights to grant eminent domain across their land the Choctaw (for that matter any tribe) may have held in their "nation". The rights now rested solely with Congress. You made a reference to this in your statement about the MKT. Jay Gould has been implicated in published works, as he was in newspapers at the time, as the man behind these actions. Gould had good reason to want to keep Texas to himself and the Frisco out. I believe this would be an acceptable example of someone with wealth and power "pulling strings" to arrange matters to benefit himself at the expense of the Frisco. This matter was of great interest in Fort Smith and references to what was (and was alleged to be) going on can be found in newspapers from that era.

About the time the Frisco finally obtained its permission from Congress to build across the Choctaw Nation, Gould obtained partial control over the railroad. Almost immediately the Frisco's efforts to build south began to flounder. I realize that several different reasons (some financial) have been given for the failure to complete the line at this time, but any and all could have been overcome if the will to do so had been great enough.

Frisco could have built an Arkansas River bridge at any time - permission to cross was never denied - as long as they were willing to build it where the government wanted it. It's true that some additional cost would have been involved, but probably not nearly as much as the Frisco claimed. It's also difficult to see why other problems like the old fort at Fort Smith were insurmountable obstacles for the Frisco. They could easily have routed their line around it (to the east). In fact the line did turn east almost immediately after it passed the fort grounds. I think a strong case could be made that Frisco unnecessarily allowed the original allotted time to built south to run out. Again, was Gould behind this???

As shown above I do consider the Frisco (or any other railroad) Annual Reports to be acceptable sources, but in some respects they are little better than newspaper articles and need to be taken with a grain of salt. Great effort was always expended to place the railroad company and the actions of its officers and directors in a most favorable light and you are always only going to get one side of the story.

John
I think that all of us who post on this forum do their best to be accurate. Your statement the the Frisco could have built the bridge any time is not supported by facts.
(I)The following extract from Mike Condren's FSVB web site sets forth in more details the Frisco problems with the Corps of Engineers in respect of the proposed bridge:
"Congress authorized the Frisco railroad bridge at Van Buren on July 3, 1882 - subject to approval of the company's plans by the Chief of Engineers, United States Army.

On November 6, 1882, W. W. Belknap submitted the Frisco's plans for the proposed bridge. They were rejected on November 24th.

Grounds for rejection:
1. Map submitted by the railroad company was not in conformity to law.
2. Bridge would be near the head of a bar that split the River. During low water boats take the channel to the right of the bar, whilst at ordinary high water the other is used.
3. The direction of the axis of the bridge and the location of the draw span are not favorable to navigation of the channel next to the town.
4. The difference between high and low water, as assumed by the company, is 32.5 feet, whereas it was 35.5 in 1844 and 39 in 1833.
5. The proper location of the bridge would be from 1,800 to 3,000 feet farther upstream.

On December 5, 1882 the Frisco replied that:
1. The location suggested is impracticable, since the curve approaching the bridge would require tunneling through the side of a steep bluff from 200 to 300 feet high, at an enormous expense, amounting to a prohibition to build the bridge at all.
2. That the draw-span is located where the main channel has been for thirteen years.
3. That the law declares that the bridge would be located at Van Buren.
4. That the navigation interests of the Upper Arkansas are insignificant.
5. That the company expects in good faith to conform to the requirements of the act as to the width of draw-spans and height of bridge.

It was stated that "excessive cost of the approach on the Van Buren side, which involved a curved tunnel in very difficult soil, amounted to a prohibition of the work."

On December 12, 1882 the Frisco submitted an amended bridge plan, to conform with the high water of 1844 (raised grade 3 feet).

A special board considered the Frisco's proposal and rejected it. They recommended a compromise location 550 to 600 feet further upstream.

A group of owners, captains, pilots and others engaged in commerce on the Arkansas also transmitted a protest against the proposed location.

Frisco then, on March 8, 1883, replied that:

(A) There would be little difference in either proposed site in regard to currents in the River. (B)The proposed location would endanger the transfer boat of the Little Rock and Fort Smith Railway Company, "used by them jointly with that company, which carries almost the entire traffic of Fort Smith and vicinity and would be endangered by close proximity to the bridge while under construction at the upper location."(C)The cost of the bridge would be $50,000 greater than at the proposed Van Buren location, while commerce on the Arkansas River was so insignificant that it was not worth the sacrifice.

The Army Engineers replied on March 22, 1883 that: (A) The bridge approaches and piers would contract the width of the river and increase the velocity at Van Buren even more. (B) The danger to the transfer boat could be obviated by providing her with "ordinarily powerful machinery." (C) The $50,000 estimate seemed rather large. They also felt that they had already "given in" enough, especially since they had agreed to allow the construction some 2,000 feet downstream of the original site they had selected.

The Frisco then suggested that a Van Buren location would allow the bridge to also function as a wagon bridge, but that could not easily be done further upstream. (This was probably done in part to win more support in Van Buren. Many people there were opposed to the bridge as it would decrease the importance of Van Buren as a shipping point.)

November 6, 1883 a "memorial" from the citizens of Fort Smith suggested that "the rapidly increasing trade of that place, and that the region of country trading with it has a population of about 50,000, and ships from 20,000 to 30,000 bales of cotton besides other merchandise, which, owing to the bad condition of the navigation of the river, is dependent upon the two railroads crossing the Arkansas in a transfer boat at Van Buren, which only takes two cars at a time, and that for the want of a bridge at that point the commerce of that region is seriously embarrassed."

On January 26, 1884 the Frisco formally agreed to the last set of modified terms, and to take whatever steps might be necessary to restore navigation if the bridge disrupted it, and the bridge was erected at Van Buren.
Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers, United States Army
to the Secretary of War, 1884. (Part 2, Vol. II, pp 1792-1796) "

II.Mike Condren's Fort Smith Van Buren website has some early photos. None of them show an interlocking tower.
III ICC Finance Docket No 9883 at ICC Reports 193,p29 effective April 27, 1933 authorized the Missouri Pacific to abandon operations into Fort Smith using the Frisco's Van Buren bridge. The decision noted that the MP had access to Fort Smith via its own bridge and that The MP had paid the Frisco $60,123 intrackage fees for the five years ended December 31, 1932, an amount almost equal to the MP's cost of taxes and maintenance on its own bridge.The MP application noted there had been a sharp decline in Fort Smith freight business that rendered use of the Frisco bridge redundant. From this document I would deduce that henceforth the MP used the Frisco bridge solely for diversions.

IV The ICC Valuation Report for the Fort Smith & Van Buren Bridge Company, ICC Valuation Reports, Volume 41, p 558-9 does not contain any reference to Little Rock & Fort Smith/MP ownership of the Frisco's Van Buren Bridge.
If the MP had an ownership interest the bonds issued to build the bridge would have shown two obligors.
V. Gould's alleged interest in delaying Frisco construction through Oklahoma may have been rooted in a desire to protect the monopoly the Gould controlled MKT had on rail traffic to and from the Lone Star State.

[john]

We might as well go ahead and continue to ruin Bill's thread, since the original question is pretty much lost anyway.

I guess I don't see the problem reconciling the opinions I posted earlier with the bridge information that I submitted for Mike's website (it probably just lost its credibility as a source). I don't remember ever seeing anything that would support the idea that the Frisco wasn't going to be allowed to bridge the Arkansas River. The fuss seems to have been entirely over the location of the bridge. IF the Frisco's officers had felt like they needed the bridge finished right then (for whatever reason - to make it easier to access Fort Smith or to finish the proposed route to Paris, Texas), all they had to do was build it where the Army Engineers wanted it. Yes, the Frisco lawyers raised some good points. I don't think the Army Engineers were idiots, however, and their arguments also had merit. The Engineers politely pointed out their belief that the Frisco was overstating the cost of following their recommendation for the bridge site, which to me was the big issue.

The "fuss" over the location of the bridge began in 1882. I think we would agree that at this point the Frisco was definitely "going it alone". If memory serves me correctly this is AFTER any discussion about a joint LR & FS bridge appeared in newsprint. It's also pretty clear the Frisco had it's mind (if a company can have a mind) made up about where it was going to be built, since they went ahead and laid the track into Fort Smith from the south bank of the River prior to getting their bridge location approved. I'm not sure what this shows other than very poor planning by the Frisco.

There are some interesting comments about the LR & FS transfer boat in the Army Engineers report. Notice that the boat in question only had a capacity of 2 rail cars. Also - The danger to the transfer boat could be obviated by providing her with "ordinarily powerful machinery." I'm sure the boat referenced here was the Harold B, the second and final boat. I have never located a newspaper article or a date for the change in boats. (obviously it was between 1879 and 1883) If anyone has this information I'd love to hear from you.

[john]

It's time to create more confusion.

This map is dated 1888. At this time the bridge would have been roughly two years old. It's the only map I am aware of which shows any structure at/near the bridge. The building shown seems to have been connected with the LR & FS.

Mike has a copy of this photo posted on his website. I'm just making it available here in higher resolution, if someone would like a better look at it. The copyright date is 1900. The original source is There Is Something To See Along The FriscoLine.

John

[john]

I don't believe the building on the LR & FS at the Frisco crossing and bridge is the LR & FS depot. Here's a different section of the perspective map which shows the location of their depot.

[john]

Here's the 2nd LR & FS transfer boat, the Harold B, moored at the incline on the north bank of the Arkansas at Van Buren. Harold B was a single engine (port side), side-wheel, double ended transport boat with a normal capacity of two freight or one passenger car. This is the vessel which transported both LR & FS and Frisco trains across the River until the completion of the Frisco bridge in 1886. It is mentioned by name in the ASCE Transactions article by Purdon on the building of the bridge.

The Purdon article includes drawings for the original bridge including the piers and spans. It also includes charts such as the one referenced below of the river stages.

On the day this photo was taken the River level was recorded at about 366 feet. I estimate (with a large degree of error) that the track elevation here at this time was about 405 feet. (Someone correct me if necessary) The drop to the boat's deck would have possibly been about 35 feet. If the drawing of the ramp (from ASCE TRANSACTIONS May 1889) on Mike's website is correctly scaled the ramp and incline was about 4 times the length of the turn span on the new bridge or about 1480 feet. This works out to a steep grade for a railroad. Charles Winters has been quoted as having said that the cars were pulled up the inclines with mule teams.

As a bonus, here's a postcard of the original bridge which I don't believe is on Mike's website. Unfortunately it doesn't shed any light on the tower question.

[john]

These are just sketch notes, but they do give some newspaper sources for Frisco - Fort Smith articles in the early 1880's. Some of this is obviously just rumors. I'm still looking for my earlier notes. I believe that these are the last references I recorded to proposed cooperation by the Frisco and the LR & FS on a project to build a bridge at Van Buren.

Fort Smith Elevator - 25 Feb 1881

Mr. Converse, President of the Little Rock and Fort Smith Railway Company has written a letter to Hon. Jesse Turner of Van Buren in which he expresses a lively interest in Arkansas railroads and manifests a desire to co-operate with the St. Louis Arkansas and Southern railroad in bridging the river at Van Buren. We believe we were the first party in our county that ever advocated the building of a railroad bridge at Van Buren and the wise men of Fort Smith at that day could not see it. Mr. James P. Henry who afterwards wrote the Resources of Arkansas, was the only party who agreed with us at the time. We think now it will be built soon...

Fort Smith Elevator 30 Sep 1881

The frisco to be pushed rapidly through to Van Buren

The railroad bridge at Van Buren decided on. Bridge to be commenced at Van Buren by the San Francisco and the Little Rock and Fort Smith roads.

Fort Smith Elevator 17 March 1882 (reprinted from Van Buren Argus)

The Frisco is now located through town to the river and the bridge is also located. The south half of the block on which Lynch's gin stands was purchased last Saturday by the right-of-way committee for the depot grounds.

(NOTE: I wonder why they didn't check with the Army Engineers before they "located" the bridge. You would think any railroad or bridge engineer would have understood that as a requirement for crossing a navigable river)

Fort Smith Elevator 17 Nov 1882 (reprinted from St. Louis Globe Democrat)

The Arkansas division of the St. Louis and San Francisco railway will be open for traffic to Fort Smith on Wednesday and will give a direct passage line that shortens the distance ninety-one miles over all other railroads (from St. Louis). The completion of the road to the bank of the Arkansas river will be celebrated by an excursion from St. Louis and a banquet at Fort Smith.

Fort Smith Elevator 9 March 1883 (reprinted from Fayetteville Sentinel

Cessation of work on the road. Talk that Van Buren would end up as the final terminus and the track to Fort Smith will be torn up.

[tomd6]

I do hope this will be the final post on the Van Buren Tower which I believe all agree never existed.

In the May 1932 issue of the Frisco Employes Magazine, Frisco railroader Mr. J. E Bradley of Fort Smith recalled the early days of Fort Smith including laying ties on the Fort Smith Van Buren railroad bridge before it opened for service. He mentioned “ At that time there was no railroad bridge across the Arkansas at Van Buren and in those days he frequently saw an entire train moved across the river by ferry. It didn’t take a large ferry to do it either, Mr. Bradley pointed out, because the train usually consisted of two wooden coaches. The locomotives were not transported as one brought the train up to one side of the river and another continued with it after it had been ferried across. There were two trains a day , one in the morning and one in the afternoon.”
The Union Bridge Company commissioned an album on the bridge’s construction. It has a nice shot of the Harold B steam launch moored adjacent to what resembles an air compressor barge.

[gbmott]

John and Tom

Thank you both for what has been a lively and very informative discussion, and while it has wandered quite a bit from the specific subject of whether a tower ever existed at the crossing in Van Buren, it has been a wandering that I, at least, have certainly welcomed. Thanks both of you.

As for the tower, however, there remains a thirty-odd year gap between knowing that the crossing was stop-and-proceed-on-visual-indication in the early 1900's and that it was protected by an automated interlocking sometime in the late 1930's. Both the traffic on both roads and the available technology had developed to the point where it seems somehow improbable that an unguarded crossing would have been seen as acceptable at some point. The question is when that point was reached and was automated interlocking technology available at that time so that indeed there was a direct move from stop-and-proceed to automatic interlocking.

So folks, dig out those employee timetables, both SLSF and MP, between 1910 and 1935 and tell us what they say! http://www.frisco.org/vb/images/icons/icon10.gif By the way, my money is still on there never having been a tower.

Gordon

[slsfrr]

I am trying to clarify this in my mind. (1) It would appear, from the post, when the bridge was constructed it may, or may not have been, a joint effort between the Frisco and MP (predecessor railroad). (2) At some point in time a stop sign was placed on the Frisco before crossing the MP. (3) Later, an interlocker plant was installed which may or may not have been automatic. One thing to remember is that a manual interlocker can be controlled from a number of locations, not necessarily a tower at the location of the interlocking plant. It could have been controlled by a control operator at Van Buren, or the dispatcher’s office. (4) There is evidence to support an automatic interlocking plant (MP timetable) at least as early as 1944.

Which brings us to the new bridge, constructed in the late 60’s early 70’s (not sure). My understanding is this section of track was CTC, controlled by the dispatcher in Springfield. Would that include the interlocking plant? And what kind of interlocker is at this location now?

Jerome

[john]

I believe that Tom and I would probably agree that WHEN the bridge was built it was strictly a SL-SF project. Any talk of a joint project was just that, talk. If anything I said implied that the LR & FS was involved in the ownership or construction of the bridge I have unintentionally misled you. The evidence supports the idea that the LR & FS (and later companies) had a contract which allowed use of the bridge.

It's interesting that Gould's visit to Jenny Lind took place in 1889. This visit was prior to the construction of the Helen Gould Bridge at Fort Smith and his train has to have entered over the Frisco bridge. He could not have been happy about this. It has been written that Helen accompanied her father on the visit. Perhaps this is how the MoPac System bridge (construction began shortly afterward) came to carry her name. Helen has also been credited with naming the company coal town (and depot) "New Jenny Lind" thus preserving the interesting name of the neighboring community of Jenny Lind.

John

[Coonskin]

Well, once again ol' Coonskin arrives at the party too late. However, looks to have been a great thread and one that I wish I would have found earlier.

John:

I would love to hear more about this Jay Gould trip to the Jenny Lind coal fields. Do you have more info at your source level?

As for the lift span:

As mentioned, that went in during 1970. I recall having viewed Mike's (Condren) slides during some of the Fort Smith Gang's* infamous "Pic Parties" of Monett trains arriving at the Fort Smith yard from the south, having used the Mop bridge to access Fort Smith.

Current interlocking at A&M/UP in Van Buren:

On our side (A&M) it is a manual interlocking. That is, we always see a Stop indication north/south. The Conductor must go over to the junction box and request a North/South signal (depending) by pushing the appropriate magic button. We may/may not get an Approach within seconds. If not, then there's a more lengthy procedure that must be followed.

Gotta' run... church is beckoning. When I get back I want to take more time to go through this thread and more fully digest the info shared.

Thanks to all that contributed!

Coonskin

Andre Ming

* "Fort Smith Gang" = Mike Condren, Jim Christenberry, Dale Dawson, Dave McDonald, Darrell Rantz, and a few other assorted crazies including yours truly.

[john]

Andre,

The information that Jay Gould had visited Jenny Lind and Greenwood originally came from an article in an old back issue of The KEY (South Sebastian County Historical Society). I kept my eyes open for some time for something that would actually document or support the statement.

The supporting documentation turned out to be in an unpublished diary which was kept by Mattie Caldwell (who resided between Jenny Lind and Greenwood) during the time period in question. Her entries were very interesting and detailed - things like the daily weather.

I don't have all of the entries in front of me at the moment, but here are a few.

Nov 7, 1888 "The company has the railroad graded to Greenwood from Fort Smith."
Dec 31, 1888 "The cars ran to the depo (in Greenwood) this morning for the first time."
March 15, 1889 "Jay Gould visited Greenwood this morning."

The Key article had mentioned, with some disgust, that Gould never even left his private car when his train stopped at Jenny Lind, but had the mine operators there come to him.

I had hoped that there would be good information, with exact dates, about the building of the Frisco south from Fort Smith, but that was a little bit "out of her area."

Jan 31, 1887 "We saw the Frisco train for the first time. The trains have just commenced running through the backbone tunnel. A train to Hackett City daily." Since I don't know what she meant by "just commenced" I can't offer an exact beginning date for the completion of the tunnel.

The first published reference to service south of Fort Smith which I have seen was an article in the Fort Smith Elevator about two weeks later.

February 18, 1887 which only said "a branch of the road has already been completed ... (to Hackett) regular trains will begin running there as son as coal shiipments commence or perhaps sooner."


John

[Coonskin]

John:

Thanks for the interesting supplemental information. As you well know, I too, have an interest in the Coal Belt region... the Iron Mountain being part of it!

Andre