Bridging the Railroad The Wheatsheaf Lane Pedestrian Bridge and the Grade Crossing Separation Movement
Bridging the Railroad
The Wheatsheaf Lane Pedestrian Bridge and the Grade Crossing Separation Movement
Lynn M. Alpert Booklet Design by Lynn Alpert / RGA, Inc.
Published by Amtrak, 2018
On the cover: Several men gathered on the Wheatsheaf Lane Pedestrian Bridge just after its completion in September of 1899. Image courtesy of PhillyHistory.org, a project of the Philadelphia Department of Records. About the Booklet
This booklet is an outgrowth Amtrak’s plans to remove a portion of the Wheatsheaf Lane Pedestrian Bridge where the bridge crosses the Northeast Corridor in Philadelphia. The bridge removal is part of Amtrak’s larger program of proactive passenger rail security. Although RIÀFLDOO\FORVHGWRSHGHVWULDQWUDIÀFLWLVSRVVLEOHIRUSHRSOHWRDFFHVV WKHEULGJHZKLFKZLWKRXWUHJXODUEULGJHWUDIÀFRURWKHUPRQLWRULQJ poses a threat to the security of Amtrak trains, passengers, and employees. The bridge removal project was reviewed in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, which was enacted to help protect historic properties in the United States. The Wheatsheaf Lane Bridge contributes to the historical VLJQLÀFDQFHRIWKH3HQQV\OYDQLD5DLOURDG 0DLQ/LQH 3KLODGHOSKLDWR New York) Historic District, which is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The partial removal of the bridge has an adverse effect on the historic district. In 2016, the Federal Railroad $GPLQLVWUDWLRQWKH3HQQV\OYDQLD6WDWH+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ2IÀFH the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania, and Amtrak executed a Memorandum of Agreement that includes several stipulations that will mitigate the effects of the project on the railroad historic district. This publication meets the requirements of one of those stipulations.
Introduction
The Wheatsheaf Lane Pedestrian Bridge was constructed in 1899 by the City of Philadelphia as part of an agreement with the Pennsylvania Railroad to eliminate a complicated and dangerous at-grade crossing over multiple tracks. Located at the intersection RI WKH 3KLODGHOSKLD 7UHQWRQ 5DLOURDG 3 7 DQG WKH &RQQHFWLQJ Railway, the rail yard at Frankford Junction expanded rapidly in the last decades of the nineteenth century, serving the needs of both UDLOURDGVDQGVXSSRUWLQJWKURXJKWUDIÀFRQWKH3 7DQG&RQQHFWLQJ Railway, extending in multiple directions out of New Jersey and through Philadelphia. After the closing of Wheatsheaf Lane, where it crossed the yard for public safety reasons, the bridge served the local FRPPXQLW\E\NHHSLQJWKHULJKWRIZD\RSHQWRSHGHVWULDQWUDIÀF retaining a connection for neighbors on either side of the yard. As of 2017, the bridge was one of only a handful of early twentieth-century pedestrian bridges remaining over Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor in Philadelphia.
6 A 1928 photograph of children playing marbles on railroad tracks, published in the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin. The Reading Railroad’s Philadelphia, Germantown and Norristown Line was located in the Manayunk neighborhood of Philadelphia, about seven miles northwest of Frankford Junction in the northwest section of the city. As early as 1907, the Reading Railroad was working to eliminate grade crossings along this entire line. These grade crossings in Manayunk were eliminated just a few years after this photograph was taken by elevating the tracks through the QHLJKERUKRRG 5DLOZD\$JH
Image courtesy of the Special Collections Research Center, Temple University Libraries, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
7 The Problem of the At-grade Crossing
,QWKHVHFRQGTXDUWHURIWKHQLQHWHHQWKFHQWXU\ZKHQWKHÀUVWUDLOURDGV were being envisioned and constructed in the United States, there ZDVQRWPXFKYHKLFXODUWUDIÀFKRUVHGUDZQRURWKHUZLVHHVSHFLDOO\ when compared to conditions in the early twentieth century. While there was an established network of roads by that time, travel was somewhat cumbersome. Therefore, the number of vehicles traveling on roads was limited, and their speed was slow compared to that RIPRGHUQDXWRPRELOHWUDIÀF)RUWKLVUHDVRQOD\LQJWUDFNVGLUHFWO\ across existing roadways did not present much of a safety concern. $IWHUDOOWKHUHZHUHSRWHQWLDOEHQHÀWVWRHPSOR\LQJWKLVFRQVWUXFWLRQ technique, such as completing rail lines faster and improving RSHUDWLQJHIÀFLHQF\E\DYRLGLQJFXUYHVDQGKLOOVZKHUHYHUSRVVLEOH 2YHUWLPHDVWUDIÀFLQFUHDVHGRQURDGVDQGUDLOURDGVEHFDPHPRUH important, safety concerns were exacerbated as road networks extended and grade crossings became more numerous.
At-grade crossings of roads and railways caused safety issues for pedestrians and horse-drawn vehicles. A terrible accident occurred at a grade crossing near Burlington, New Jersey, in 1855. A train made its usual crossing of the road, where Dr. John Heineken, along with his wife and two children, were waiting in a horse-drawn carriage to cross the tracks. Once the train had safely passed, Dr. Heineken proceeded across the tracks. The train, though, suddenly needed to reverse and quickly moved back into the crossing. The rear car struck the horses, and the train derailed, killing a number RI SDVVHQJHUV 3KLODGHOSKLD 'DLO\ 1HZV ,Q UHSRUWLQJ RQ D grade crossing accident in Glassboro, New Jersey, in 1888, the Philadelphia Inquirer noted how common fatal grade crossing accidents had become by that time. While crossing the tracks of the West Jersey Railroad, a carriage was struck by an express train from Atlantic City, killing one of the two passengers, as well as the horse SXOOLQJ WKH YHKLFOH 3KLODGHOSKLD ,QTXLUHU E ,Q FLWLHV WUROOH\ lines also frequently needed to cross roads and railroads, further complicating grade crossings and introducing more danger and risk for accidents. 8 The dangers of at-grade railroad crossings became abundantly clear with the widespread use of the automobile on the American roadway. The relatively sudden presence of a large number of fast-moving vehicles jetting across the tracks caused a number of issues. While signs at crossings prompted people to “STOP, LOOK, AND LISTEN,” the warning did not seem to inspire caution or deter people from crossing the tracks when a train was visibly approaching. The public often did not understand that, even though a train looked to be very far away, it would advance extremely quickly. Furthermore, cars were controlled by individual drivers, many of whom were new to driving and whose actions and decisions were not easily regulated. New drivers were excited to see how fast their cars could go and were even encouraged by advertisers who dared them to race the trains. Often people would race the trains right up to a crossing and get into a collision. Even the more responsible drivers, who would wait for a train to pass in one direction, might cross the tracks without thinking to check for a second train coming in the opposite direction. All of these issues, coupled with the frequency of new vehicles stalling, often in the middle of the grade crossing, made for an extremely GDQJHURXVVLWXDWLRQ 6WLOJRH
In urban areas, all of these issues were compounded. Any given grade crossing could include large groups of cars and pedestrians DORQJZLWKDGGLWLRQDOWUDFNVVHUYLQJORFDOVWUHHWFDUV VHHWKH SKRWRJUDSKRQWKHRSSRVLWHSDJH 7KHVHZHUHKLJKHUWUDIÀFDUHDV and people grew frustrated when waiting on passing trains. Trains, especially those carrying freight, could take a long time to pass through a crossing, leading some people to race in front of the trains to avoid the wait, often failing in their efforts. Warning signals at grade crossings evolved to better alert the public to oncoming WUDLQV$WEXV\LQWHUVHFWLRQVÁDJPHQZHUHLQWURGXFHGWROHWPRWRULVWV and pedestrians know when a train was approaching. When it was GLVFRYHUHGWKDWWKHÁDJPHQZHUHQRWDOZD\VHDVLO\VHHQ RUZHUH LJQRUHGGHVSLWHKDYLQJEHHQVHHQ JDWHVZHUHLQVWDOOHGDQGÁDJPHQ became gate operators. Even still, many drivers would simply drive around the gates out of impatience. In 1920, the New York Central System conducted a study of 7,779 people at a particular railroad FURVVLQJ2IWKRVHREVHUYHGWKH\IRXQGWKDWRQO\ ORRNHGERWK ways before crossing, and not one single individual stopped, looked, DQGOLVWHQHG 6WLOJRH
9 SKRWRJUDSKRIDFRPSOH[JUDGHFURVVLQJLQ3KLODGHOSKLDSXEOLVKHGLQWKH Philadelphia Evening Bulletin.
Image courtesy of the Special Collections Research Center, Temple University Libraries, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
10 1922 American Railway Association poster, the hallmark of its national Careful Crossing Campaign.
11 Solving a Complex Problem
The late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries saw regular public education campaigns on the part of the railroads and the government in an effort to make people more aware of the dangers RIJUDGHFURVVLQJVEXWQRQHSURYHGHIIHFWLYH 6WLOJRH One example is the American Railway Association’s 1922 “Careful Crossing Campaign.” A poster depicting a car about to collide with a train at a grade crossing was mass produced along with the “Cross &URVVLQJV&DXWLRXVO\%XOOHWLQµ VHHWKHSRVWHURQWKHRSSRVLWHSDJH The poster was reproduced as a sticker to be placed on outgoing mail by the Postal Service, who ordered over six million to be sent throughout the country. More than half of U.S. movie theaters also projected the poster as a slide in the reels preceding the show, and over 1.25 million copies of the bulletin were distributed throughout the country, as well as in Canada. President Warren G. Harding stated that campaigns like these were essential “to arouse in the minds of drivers a sense of their personal responsibility. When thoughtlessness is allowed to usurp the place of vigilance, as too often happens, the VFHQHLVVHWIRUWUDJHG\µ 1DWLRQDO6DIHW\&RXQFLO
President Harding supported the Careful Crossing Campaign, but noted that the best solution by this time was clearly to eliminate JUDGHFURVVLQJVZKHUHYHUSRVVLEOH 1DWLRQDO6DIHW\&RXQFLO ,GHDOO\WKHUDLOURDGZRXOGFRQVWUXFWDQRYHUJUDGHEULGJHRU under-grade passage at each dangerous grade crossing, allowing motorists, pedestrians, and street cars to pass unencumbered DQG RXW RI KDUP·V ZD\ 6WLOJRH 7KH VROXWLRQ ZDV D complicated one, though. As early as 1888, the City of Philadelphia acknowledged the need for the construction of bridges to avoid grade crossings, while noting that a conversation needed to take place
12 EHWZHHQ WKH &LW\ DQG WKH 3HQQV\OYDQLD 5DLOURDG 355 WR DUUDQJH terms and come to an understanding of each side’s responsibilities DQGREOLJDWLRQV 3KLODGHOSKLD,QTXLUHUD 7KHHQJLQHHULQJRI grade separations could also be complicated, especially in urban areas with dense street grids and numerous crossings grouped relatively close together.
Given all of the safety issues surrounding grade crossings, especially the unnecessary deaths and injuries and destruction of property, one would expect widespread public support for the separation of these crossings. Unfortunately, this was not always the case. The act of altering the grade of either the roadway or the railroad was a FRPSOH[IHDWRIHQJLQHHULQJDQGUHVXOWHGLQVLJQLÀFDQWFKDQJHVWRWKH surrounding landscape. Business owners at crossings were not keen on the idea of an elevated bridge blocking views of and direct access to their stores. Residents worried about the effects these aesthetic changes to the landscape would have on their property values. Railroads cutting through a town often resulted in the elevation of the railroad grade above a number of crossings, creating a wall dividing the two sides. Underpasses forced not just vehicles but also pedestrians underground into long tunnels. All of these issues could severely delay or completely stop grade crossing elimination projects 6WLOJRH
A less popular but more straightforward solution was to simply close a road where it crossed train tracks. This idea was thought to be most useful in urban areas, where streets were relatively close together and motorists and pedestrians would only have to travel RQVOLJKWGHWRXUVWRÀQGDWKURXJKURXWH7KHUHZHUHRWKHULVVXHV ZLWKWKLVDSSURDFKEH\RQGWKHLQFRQYHQLHQFHWRWUDIÀFRIFORVLQJD roadway. Railroads found that, despite the construction of fences at the now dead-ended roads, drivers would regularly drive through these barriers and onto the railroad tracks, further rendering this option inferior to that of completely separating the road and rails 6WLOJRH
Pedestrian Bridges along the Northeast Corridor
The road closure solution was utilized where Wheatsheaf Lane intersects with the Frankford Junction yard in the northeastern section of Philadelphia. To maintain an open crossing for pedestrians, a footbridge was built on the alignment of Wheatsheaf Lane after it ZDVFORVHGWRYHKLFXODUWUDIÀF$QXPEHURIIRRWEULGJHVZHUHEXLOW to protect pedestrians and aid in their crossing over the railroad throughout Philadelphia and the surrounding suburbs, though surviving pedestrian bridges over the present-day Northeast Corridor 1(& LQ3HQQV\OYDQLDDUHUDUH 3KLODGHOSKLDDQG7UHQWRQ5DLOURDG Company Minute Books n.d.; Connecting Railway Minute Books n.d.). The Wheatsheaf Lane Pedestrian Bridge is the longest and oldest of four known surviving pedestrian bridges along the NEC in 3HQQV\OYDQLD 856 7KHWKUHHRWKHUEULGJHVDUHVPDOOHU in scale, each comprised of a single span, and were built by the 3HQQV\OYDQLD5DLOURDG 355 LQWKH V 856
The four surviving examples along the NEC in Pennsylvania can be split into two categories: bridges built in an urban setting to keep SXEOLF VWUHHWV RSHQ WR IRRW WUDIÀF ZKLOH UHPRYLQJ GDQJHURXV DW grade railroad crossings, and those in more suburban settings built LQ UHVSRQVH WR D VSHFLÀF SXEOLF QHHG $Q H[DPSOH RI WKH ODWWHU LV the Rosemont Avenue Pedestrian Bridge in Ridley Park, which was presumably built to facilitate safe access for students who had to cross the tracks to get to school. Overall, the four bridges were all GHVLJQHGDVSXEOLFVDIHW\VROXWLRQVKHOSLQJWRNHHSSHGHVWULDQWUDIÀF DQGUDLOWUDIÀFVHSDUDWHDQGRSHQZKHUHDFRPSOHWHVHSDUDWLRQRID FURVVLQJZDVQRWDQRSWLRQ 856
+RSNLQVDWODV WRS DQG%DLVWDWODV ERWWRP GHSLFWLQJWKHUDSLGDGGLWLRQ of tracks at Frankford Junction and across Wheatsheaf Lane in the late nineteenth century.
Images from the Free Library of Philadelphia, Map Collection and the Athenaeum of Philadelphia.
15 Frankford Junction
7KHWUDFNVRIWKH3KLODGHOSKLD 7UHQWRQ5DLOURDG 3 7 KDGFURVVHG GLUHFWO\RYHU:KHDWVKHDI/DQHVLQFHWKHUDLOURDG·VRSHQLQJLQ At that time, the crossing consisted of two tracks, similar to many crossings found throughout Philadelphia, and was as dangerous as the average at-grade crossing. What created a more complex crossing at Wheatsheaf Lane than others around the city was the introduction of the tracks of a second rail line, the Connecting 5DLOZD\LQ &KXUHOOD 856
Though many rail lines connected Philadelphia with neighboring FLWLHVVXFKDV1HZ
The construction of the Connecting Railway quickly complicated the rail crossings over Wheatsheaf Lane, as the location chosen for the junction with the existing P&T tracks was just north of the URDG +RSNLQV VHHWKHPDSRSSRVLWHWKLVSDJH 7KH
16 FRQÀJXUDWLRQRIWKHWUDFNVDWWKHQHZFRQQHFWLRQWREHNQRZQDV Frankford Junction, formed a wye, or a fork, with an additional pair of tracks now branching southwest across Wheatsheaf Lane. Pedestrian DQG FDUW WUDIÀF DORQJ :KHDWVKHDI /DQH ZDV DOUHDG\ FRPSOLFDWHG in this location by the at-grade crossing of the twin tracks of the P&T. The addition of the tracks of the Connecting Railway made the FRQÁLFWVEHWZHHQVWUHHWDQGUDLOWUDIÀFWKDWPXFKPRUHKD]DUGRXV
Upon completion of the Connecting Railway, the line was leased to the P&T, with both rail lines then being under the control of the “Joint Companies” of New Jersey. The powerful Joint Companies had held a veritable monopoly on transportation in New Jersey since the centerpiece of the company, the Camden & Amboy Railroad, was IRXQGHGLQ7KHLQWHUHVWVRIWKH-RLQW&RPSDQLHVZHUHH[WHQGHG LQWR3HQQV\OYDQLDLQZKHQWKH\SXUFKDVHGDFRQWUROOLQJLQWHUHVW in the P&T. Following the opening of the Connecting Railway, the P&T quickly became the primary route used by the Joint Companies, then further consolidated as the “United Companies,” for transportation between Philadelphia and New York. In the mid-nineteenth century, the PRR lacked its own direct connection to the New York markets and was dependent on the United Companies for reliable access to New York via the Connecting Railway and the P&T. To alleviate this dependence and to gain control of the transportation routes through New Jersey, the PRR entered into a 999-year lease of all of the rail lines and canal systems held by the United Companies on December 1, 1871. This lease included both the Connecting Railway and the 3 7 &KXUHOOD
Over time, the importance of Frankford Junction increased, as it continued to serve as the connecting point between the Connecting 5DLOZD\ DQG WKH 3 7 856 ,Q DQWLFLSDWLRQ RI WKH Centennial Exhibition in Philadelphia, the PRR widened the right-of- way of the P&T from two to four tracks in key locations, including )UDQNIRUG -XQFWLRQ &KXUHOOD VHH WKH PDS RQ SDJH $VWKHFHQWHURIUDLOURDGWUDIÀFLQWKHQRUWKHDVWHUQSRUWLRQ of the city, there was heightened demand for a rail yard at this ORFDWLRQ *LDQQDQWRQLR $QRUWKDQGDVRXWKUHFHLYLQJ yard grew up rapidly around the junction in the 1880s. By 1888, the yard at Frankford Junction had been clearly established, consisting
17 %URPOH\DWODV WRS DQG 6PLWKDWODV ERWWRP LOOXVWUDWLQJWKHFRQWLQXHG expansion of the rail lines at Frankford Junction and across Wheatsheaf Lane in WKHÀUVWGHFDGHRIWKHWZHQWLHWKFHQWXU\1RWHWKHSUHVHQFHRIWKHSHGHVWULDQEULGJH in line with Wheatsheaf Lane on the 1910 map. Though constructed in 1899, the bridge is absent from the 1901 map.
Images from the Free Library of Philadelphia, Map Collection and the Philadelphia Historical Commission.
18 This 1920 Sanborn map provides a detailed view of the infrastructure and complex rail yard and crossings that had been built up at Frankford Junction and across
19 Wheatsheaf Lane. The pedestrian bridge had been expanded further to the south by the time this map was created.
Images from the Penn State University Libraries.
20 RI DSSUR[LPDWHO\ WUDFNV DOO FURVVLQJ :KHDWVKHDI /DQH %DLVW VHHWKHPDSRQSDJH
The railyard at Frankford Junction continued to expand throughout the 1890s. Upwards of 15 separate tracks crossed Wheatsheaf Lane LQ %URPOH\ %URPOH\ ,Q WKH 'HODZDUH 5LYHU 5DLOURDG %ULGJH&RPSDQ\UDLOOLQHRSHQHGWRWUDIÀF *LDQQDQWRQLR 2007: 26). The rail line extended southeast from the tracks of the Connecting Railway at Frankford Junction. It continued across the tracks of the P&T, within the south receiving yard, and then crossed Wheatsheaf Lane at Sepviva Street. From there, the line continued southeast to the newly-constructed Delair Bridge, where it crossed into New Jersey. The tracks of yet another rail line could only have served to further spur growth of the yard. In 1899, a pedestrian bridge was completed that spanned the north yard along the alignment of Wheatsheaf Lane, providing safe passage for pedestrians over the greatly expanded Frankford Junction. In 1900, the PRR added an HQJLQHKRXVHDQGWXUQWDEOHWRWKHVRXWK\DUG 856 VHHWKH 1901 map). Between 1910 and 1920, the PRR continued to expand the yard, most notably with the construction of a number of railroad VLGLQJVZLWKLQWKHQRUWK\DUG 6DQERUQ0DS&RPSDQ\ VHH the 1910 map and the 1920 map on the previous page). By 1920, DSSUR[LPDWHO\VHSDUDWHWUDFNVSDVVHGEHQHDWKWKH:KHDWVKHDI Lane Pedestrian Bridge, which had been expanded to the southeast, the bridge growing along with the yards.
21 SKRWRJUDSK E\ 5LFKDUG 3DUNHU RI D ** (OHFWULF ORFRPRWLYH DW OHIW DW Frankford Junction. The Wheatsheaf Lane Pedestrian Bridge is visible to the right of the locomotive, with the circa-1920 southeast expanded portion of the bridge visible at the far right. The bridge passes over a large group of tank cars being held on some of the many tracks and railroad sidings that made up the yard at Frankford Junction by that time.
Image reprinted by permission from the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission.
22 1899 drawing of the proposed foot bridge at Wheatsheaf Lane.
Image from the Amtrak Archives.
Wheatsheaf Lane Bridge
The sheer number of tracks crossing Wheatsheaf Lane by 1890 created a public safety predicament that could not be ignored. With the continued growth of Frankford Junction and the related rail yard, it became clear to the City of Philadelphia that a safe means of crossing the tracks was necessary. On July 2, 1890, the Select and Common Councils of the City of Philadelphia passed an ordinance to do away with the “very dangerous series of grade crossings” that ELVHFWHG:KHDWVKHDI/DQH 2UGLQDQFHVRIWKH&LW\RI3KLODGHOSKLD 1890: 267). The ordinance authorized the Department of Public :RUNV WR UHYLVH FLW\ SODQV WR FORVH WKH VWUHHW WR WUDIÀF EHWZHHQ Coral and Amber streets. While keeping Wheatsheaf Lane open to YHKLFXODU WUDIÀF ZRXOG KDYH EHHQ LGHDO WKH VL]H RI WKH )UDQNIRUG Junction yard and the sheer number of tracks crossing Wheatsheaf Lane at grade, along with the relatively-dense network of streets and established industries and residential blocks surrounding the yard, made elevation or depression of the tracks at this location GLIÀFXOWLIQRWLPSRVVLEOH)RUWKLVUHDVRQWKHOHVVGHVLUDEOHVROXWLRQ was employed at Wheatsheaf Lane: the vehicular crossing would be DEROLVKHGDQGSHGHVWULDQWUDIÀFZRXOGEHHOHYDWHG
It would take nine years for the road to close and the pedestrian bridge to be completed. The 1890 ordinance was complex. In addition to the closing of Wheatsheaf Lane and the construction of the pedestrian bridge, the ordinance included alterations to a number of streets around the yard and called for the construction of D3KLODGHOSKLD 7UHQWRQ5DLOURDG 3 7 EULGJHRYHUQHDUE\%XWOHU Street, eliminating a second dangerous grade crossing in the area 2UGLQDQFHVRIWKH&LW\RI3KLODGHOSKLD 7KH3 7ZDVWR be responsible for the construction of the railroad bridge at Butler Street, while the city would build the pedestrian bridge along the alignment of Wheatsheaf Lane.
The agreement was further complicated by the number of parties LQYROYHG)RUH[DPSOHLQ WKH3HQQV\OYDQLD5DLOURDG 355 WKH 3 7DQGWKH&RQQHFWLQJ5DLOZD\ÀOHGDUWLFOHVRIDJUHHPHQWZLWKWKH 3KLODGHOSKLD/DZ'HSDUWPHQW 2UGLQDQFHVRIWKH&LW\RI3KLODGHOSKLD 1898: 7). The articles of agreement paved the way for construction RIWKHEULGJHWRÀQDOO\PRYHIRUZDUGDQGIXUWKHUUHÀQHGWKHSRUWLRQ of Wheatsheaf Lane to be vacated, allowing the road to remain open between the northwest edge of the railroad right-of-way and Coral Street. Finally, in June of 1898, the Common Council of the City of Philadelphia reviewed an ordinance authorizing “the construction of a foot-bridge over the Pennsylvania Railroad at Wheat Sheaf lane” -RXUQDO RI WKH &RPPRQ &RXQFLO 7ZR PRQWKV ODWHU $5,000 was made available for the construction of the foot bridge &LW\RI3KLODGHOSKLD
The 1899 drawing for the Wheatsheaf Lane Pedestrian Bridge shows that the bridge was designed by the City of Philadelphia’s Department RI3XEOLF:RUNVDQGDSSURYHGE\WKH&KLHI(QJLQHHURIWKH355 VHH SDJH 7KRXJKDVSHFLÀFGHVLJQHUIRUWKHEULGJHLVQRWNQRZQ Samuel Gourley, Jr. was the contractor for the project. Gourley, a 3KLODGHOSKLDEXLOGHUDQGFRQWUDFWRUSUDFWLFLQJRXWRIRIÀFHVKHVKDUHG with his father, Samuel Gourley, Sr., at 21st Street and Ridge Avenue, had been the lowest bidder for the project. Gourley’s supervision of the work involved checking 18 shop drawings, the preparation of IRXUVXSSOHPHQWDU\GUDZLQJVDQGÀHOGVXSHUYLVLRQRIWKHZRUN VHH WKHSODQVKHHWIRUWKHEULGJHRQSDJH 7KHPHWDOZRUNIRUWKH bridge was manufactured by the Phoenix Iron Works in Phoenixville, 3HQQV\OYDQLD*RXUOH\UHFHLYHGQRWLFHWREHJLQZRUNRQ0DUFK 1899, and on September 8 construction of the Wheatsheaf Lane 3HGHVWULDQ%ULGJHZDVFRPSOHWHGZLWKWKHÀQDOSD\PHQWEHLQJPDGH WRWKHFRQWUDFWRUVRQ6HSWHPEHU &LW\RI3KLODGHOSKLD 7DWPDQ VHHWKH SKRWRJUDSKRSSRVLWHWKLVSDJH
The continued expansion of Frankford Junction in the early twentieth FHQWXU\DQGVSHFLÀFDOO\WKHDGGLWLRQRIQXPHURXVUDLOURDGVLGLQJV across the line of Wheatsheaf Lane south of the pedestrian bridge, required the extension of the bridge to maintain the safe passage RIIRRWWUDIÀFDFURVVWKH\DUG7KRXJKDVSHFLÀFFRQVWUXFWLRQGDWH for the southeastern addition is unknown, the two-span Pratt through truss addition to the bridge is similar in style and design to
25 1899 photograph of the Wheatsheaf Lane Bridge upon completion.
Image from the City of Philadelphia Annual Report for 1899.
26 another surviving pedestrian bridge along the NEC in Philadelphia, the Central Avenue Pedestrian Bridge, which was built by the PRR LQ 856 ,WLVOLNHO\WKDWWKHVRXWKHDVWHUQDGGLWLRQ was constructed by the railroad in conjunction with other work at Frankford Junction.
Despite the increased length of the bridge, at-grade crossings lingered along Wheatsheaf Lane in the vicinity of Frankford Junction. In 1917, two additional rail sidings were constructed across the road HDVWRIWKHVRXWKHDVWHUQHQGRIWKHSHGHVWULDQEULGJH VHHWKH map in the previous section). The sidings provided direct access to WKH$PHULFDQ(QJLQHHULQJ&RPSDQ\·VPDFKLQHKRXVH 6PLWK Though the sidings likely saw somewhat limited use with trains traveling at relatively low speeds, their construction beyond the reach RI WKH SHGHVWULDQ EULGJH LV RQH H[DPSOH RI KRZ GLIÀFXOW LW ZDVWR NHHSSHGHVWULDQYHKLFXODUDQGUDLOWUDIÀFVHSDUDWHGHVSLWHWKHEHVW intentions of the City and the railroad companies.
Photograph of the Central Avenue Pedestrian Bridge, built by the Pennsylvania 5DLOURDG LQ DQG RQH RI WKH IHZ VXUYLYLQJ SHGHVWULDQ EULGJHV DORQJ WKH Northeast Corridor. The design of the bridge is similar to that of the early-twentieth- century addition to the Wheatsheaf Lane Bridge.
Photograph by the author, 2018.
27 Grade Crossings Today
All of the historic at-grade crossings along the Northeast Corridor 1(& KDYHORQJEHHQUHPRYHGWKRXJKQXPHURXVJUDGHFURVVLQJV remain outside of the NEC, scattered throughout Philadelphia and Pennsylvania. Improvement projects where these crossings remain continue on rail lines throughout the Commonwealth to this GD\ 7KH 3HQQV\OYDQLD 'HSDUWPHQW RI 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ 3HQQ'27 highlights the need for grade crossing safety improvements and continued elimination, where feasible, in its 2015 rail plan for the &RPPRQZHDOWK7KHSODQQRWHVWKDWLQWKHUHZHUHSXEOLF highway-rail grade crossings in Pennsylvania. Utilizing funds from WKH)HGHUDO6HFWLRQ&URVVLQJ,PSURYHPHQW3URJUDP3HQQ'27 is working to eliminate hazards and improve safety conditions at these crossings. While the majority of these improvements involve the installation and upgrading of safety equipment and signals, some work does include the complete elimination of grade crossings. The rail plan also notes the importance of Operation Lifesaver, a national QRQSURÀWRUJDQL]DWLRQZRUNLQJZLWKUDLOURDGVWRHGXFDWHWKHSXEOLF in hopes of ending railroad-related accidents, especially those at JUDGHFURVVLQJV 3HQQ'27 ²
When it was built in 1899, the Wheatsheaf Lane Pedestrian Bridge increased public safety and the safety of railroad crew and passengers by eliminating a dangerous and complex grade crossing. Today, the bridge poses a danger to those it was designed to protect. Although the bridge must be removed to ensure safe rail travel, it should be remembered as a representative example of an important trend in the development of railroads and the evolution of grade crossing design.
28 Bibliography
Baist, G. Wm. 1888 Baist’s Atlas of the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. G.Wm. Baist, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Barnes, R. L. 1859 Barnes’ Map of Philadelphia: Built Portion of the City. R. L. Barnes, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1867 Barnes Map of the Whole Incorporated City of Philadelphia. R. L. Barnes, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Bromley, George W. and Walter S. Bromley 1891 Atlas of the City of Philadelphia, Volume 9, 25th & 33rd Wards. G.W. Bromley & Co., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1901 Atlas of the City of Philadelphia. G.W. Bromley & Co., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Churella, Albert J. The Pennsylvania Railroad, Volume I: Building an Empire, 1846-1917. The University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
City of Philadelphia 1899 Fourth Annual Message of Charles F. Warwick, Mayor of the City of Philadelphia, with Annual Reports, for the Year Ending December 31, 1898, Volume III. Dunlap Printing Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1900 First Annual Message of Samuel H. Ashbridge, Mayor of the City of Philadelphia, with Annual Reports, Year Ending December 31, 1899, Volume II. Dunlap Printing Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Connecting Railway Minute Books n.d. Minute Books, Connecting Railway Company, Pennsylvania Railroad Records. On ÀOH6SHFLDO&ROOHFWLRQV5HVHDUFK&HQWHU7HPSOH8QLYHUVLW\/LEUDULHV3KLODGHOSKLD Pennsylvania.
Giannantonio, Albert J. ´)UDQNIRUG-XQFWLRQLQWKH6L[WLHVµ7KH+LJK/LQH:LQWHU
Hopkins, G.M., C.E. 1886 Atlas of the City of Philadelphia, 25th Ward. G.M. Hopkins, C.E., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Journal of the Common Council 1899 Journal of the Common Council of the City of Philadelphia, Volume II. Dunlap Printing Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
29 National Safety Council ´&DUHIXO&URVVLQJ&DPSDLJQ*HWV1DWLRQDO6XSSRUWµ1DWLRQDO6DIHW\1HZV
Ordinances of the City of Philadelphia 1890 Ordinances of the City of Philadelphia, from January 1, to December 31, 1890. Dando Printing and Publishing Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1898 Ordinances of the City of Philadelphia, from January 1, to December 31, 1897. Dunlap Printing Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
3HQQV\OYDQLD'HSDUWPHQWRI7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ 3HQQ'27 2016 2015 Pennsylvania State Rail Plan. Electronic document, http://www.penndot.gov/ Doing-Business/RailFreightAndPorts/Planning/Documents, accessed June 6, 2017.
Philadelphia and Trenton Railroad Company Minute Books n.d. Minute Books, Philadelphia and Trenton Railroad Company, Penn Central Records. 2QÀOH1HZ-HUVH\6WDWH$UFKLYHV7UHQWRQ1HZ-HUVH\
Philadelphia Daily News ´/DPHQWDEOH5DLOURDG$FFLGHQWµ$XJXVW3KLODGHOSKLD3HQQV\OYDQLD
Philadelphia Inquirer D ´%ULGJLQJWKH&URVVLQJV«µ2FWREHU 3KLODGHOSKLD3HQQV\OYDQLD 1888b “Grade Crossing Accident.” 25 February: 1. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Railway Age ´5HDGLQJ&RPSOHWHV*UDGH6HSDUDWLRQ:RUNDW0DQD\XQN3DµRailway Age 90: no. 5: 276-281. Simmons-Boardman Publishing Company, New York, New York.
Sanborn Map Company 1920 Insurance Maps of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Volume 10. Sanborn Map Company, New York, New York.
Smith, Elvino V., C.E. 1910 Atlas of the 25th and 45th Wards of the City of Philadelphia. Elvino V. Smith, C.E., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Smith, Thomas B. 1917 “An Ordinance to Authorize…” Philadelphia Inquirer 26 June: 19. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Stilgoe, John R. Metropolitan Corridor: Railroads and the American Scene, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.
Tatman, Sandra L. 2016 Biography of Samuel Gourley, Jr., from the American Architects and Buildings Database. Electronic document, http://philadelphiabuildings.org, accessed January 16, 2016.
856&RUSRUDWLRQ 856 Historic Context Study: Pedestrian bridges on Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor in Pennsylvania. URS Corporation, Fort Washington, Pennsylvania.