June 2019 in this issue...

3 Curator’s Corner: Only Vol. 37, No. 2, June 2019 Mad Dogs and Mailmen Go Out In The Midnight Pennsylvania Historical Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania Gloom & Museum Commission Advisory Council by Daniel Sohn 8 News & Views governor ...... The Honorable President ...... Mr. Douglas Watts Tom Wolf Secretary ...... Ms. Deborah Reddig 13 MARC Madness Chairman ...... Ms. Nancy Moses Members ...... Mr. Ronald T. Bailey by Stephen B. Ferrell executive director...... Ms. Andrea Lowery Mr. Rudy Husband Ms. Marilyn Jamison 16 American Steam Museum director ...... Mr. Patrick C. Morrison Mr. Kevin Jurgelewicz Mr. Bennett Levin Locomotives: Design and Members ...... Ms. Ophelia M. Chambliss Mr. Jeffrey J. Majersky Mr. Linn Moedinger Development, 1880-1960, Sen. Andrew E. Dinniman Mr. William V. Lewis Dr. Jeremy F. Plant Mr. Alfred Sauer Mr. Eric Winslow by William L. Withuhn Mr. Andrew E. Masich Rep. Robert F. Matzie Mr. Fredrick C. Powell Mr. Robert M. Savakinus Book Review by Ronald T. Bailey Honorary Sen. Joseph B. Scarnati III Dr. David Schuyler Mrs. Donna L. Kreiser Mr. Charles W. Moorman IV 20 Bridging The Railroad: Mr. Kenneth C. Turner Rep. Parke Wentling Mr. Paul Quinn Mr. Bill Schafer The Wheatsheaf Lane Mr. Phillip D. Zimmerman Pedestrian Bridge And Ex Offi cio ...... Dr. Pedro Rivera Supporting Mr. James Alexander Jr Dr. John H. Bowman The Grade Crossing The Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania is administered Mr. Patrick C. Morrison Separation Movement by the Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission by Lynn M. Alpert with the active support of the Friends of the Railroad Milepost Museum of Pennsylvania. Managing editor ...... Ms. Deborah Reddig Cover Photo: The popularity of commuter trains Friends of the Contributing editor. . . . .Mr. Patrick C. Morrison brought about the development of the G5s locomotives, the design/layout...... Mrs. Heather Shaubach, largest and weightiest ten-wheelers ever built. Exhibited Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania Cooper Printing, Inc. on Track 2 East in Rolling Stock Hall, the Railroad Board of Directors Ms. Deborah Reddig Museum of Pennsylvania’s 95-year-old G5s locomotive President ...... Mr. James R. Rose No. 5741 was built in the Pennsylvania Railroad’s Juniata Printed by Cooper Printing, Inc., Lancaster, PA Vice President ...... Mr. William Cluley Shops. It is one of the pieces from the famed Pennsylvania Milepost (ISSN 10587861) is published by and for Secretary ...... Mr. Douglas G. O’Brien Railroad Historical Collection and is listed on the the Friends of the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania Treasurer ...... Mr. Stephen B. Ferrell National Register of Historic Places. (D. Reddig Photo, in April, June, August, October and December at Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania, PHMC) Members ...... Mr. Marino J. “Joe” Acri Strasburg, PA 17579. Subscription to the Milepost is Mr. Albert J. Giannantonio Jr Inside Front Cover Photo: included as part of annual membership in the FRM. Cleanliness is next Mr. John Gummo Mr. Douglas Henry to conservation. Security offi cer Dennis Keperling waxes Mr. G. Wayne Laepple Mr. Tom Ohlhaber Periodicals postage paid Lancaster, PA. the Museum’s Pennsylvania Railroad E7s locomotive No. Mr. Joseph E. Savoca POSTMASTER: 7002, not only to keep it gleaming for visitors but also Please send change of address to: Ex Offi cio ...... Mr. Patrick C. Morrison to help keep the historic artifact well preserved. (Craig Friends of the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania Benner Photo, Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania, PHMC) The Friends of the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania P. O. Box 125, Strasburg, PA 17579 (FRM) is a non-profi t volunteer museum support Phone: (717) 687-8628 • Fax: (717) 687-0876 Back Cover Photo: The 85-year-old B1 locomotive organization chartered by the Pennsylvania Historical Email: [email protected] No. 5690 was built in Altoona, Pennsylvania by the & Museum Commission. www.rrmuseumpa.org Pennsylvania Railroad, in association with Westinghouse Electric and Allis Chalmers. Dubbed a rat by train crews, Smithsonian A liate as they watched the way B1 switchers scurried around railroad yards, No. 5690 spent most of its 37-year service life in New York’s Sunnyside Yard, and is the last survivor of its class of locomotive. No. 5690 is exhibited on Track 4 East in Rolling Stock Hall. (D. Reddig Photo, Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania)

2 June 2019 Bridging The Railroad: The Wheatsheaf Lane Pedestrian Bridge And The Grade Crossing Separation Movement

by Lynn M. Alpert Several men gathered on the Wheatsheaf Lane Pedestrian Bridge just after its completion in September of 1899. (Courtesy of PhillyHistory.org, a project of the Philadelphia Department of Records)

Introduction The Problem Of The At-Grade Crossing Railroads have to manage the comfort and safety of In the second quarter of the 19th century, when the fi rst passengers and the public along with the responsibility of railroads were being envisioned and constructed in the United caring for and upgrading aging infrastructure. An added States, there was not much vehicular traffi c, horse-drawn or complication is the often historically signifi cant nature of the otherwise, especially when compared to conditions in the early railroad. The removal of a portion of the Wheatsheaf Lane 20th century. While there was an established network of roads Pedestrian Bridge in Philadelphia, to be undertaken by Amtrak, by that time, travel was somewhat cumbersome. Therefore, the is a prime example of the decisions that must be made by the railroads to balance needs that can be at odds with one another. The bridge, which crosses over the Northeast Corridor (NEC), is a contributing resource within the National Register-eligible Pennsylvania Railroad Main Line (Philadelphia to New York) Historic District, and its partial removal diminishes the integrity of the historic district. The bridge removal is part of Amtrak’s larger program of proactive passenger rail security. Although offi cially closed to pedestrian traffi c, it is possible for people to access the bridge which, without regular bridge traffi c or other monitoring, poses a threat to the security of Amtrak trains, passengers and employees. The city of Philadelphia constructed the Wheatsheaf Lane Pedestrian Bridge in 1899 as part of an elaborate agreement with the Pennsylvania Railroad (PRR) to eliminate a complicated and dangerous at-grade crossing over multiple tracks. Located at the intersection of the Philadelphia & Trenton Railroad (P&T) and the PRR’s Connecting Railway, the bridge crossed the rail yard at Frankford Junction, which had expanded rapidly in the last decades of the 19th century. The yard served the needs of A 1928 photograph of children playing marbles on railroad tracks, both railroads and supported rail through traffi c that extended in published in the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin. The Reading multiple directions out of New Jersey and through Philadelphia. Railroad’s Philadelphia, Germantown and Norristown Line was located in the Manayunk neighborhood of Philadelphia, about seven After the closing of Wheatsheaf Lane, where it crossed the yard miles northwest of Frankford Junction in the northwest section for public safety reasons, the bridge served the local community of the city. According to a 1931 article published in the magazine by keeping the right-of-way open to pedestrian traffi c, retaining Railway Age, the Reading Railroad began working to eliminate a connection for neighbors on either side of the yard. As of grade crossings along this entire line as early as 1907. These 2017, the bridge was one of only a handful of early 20th century grade crossings in Manayunk were eliminated just a few years after this photograph was taken by elevating the tracks through the pedestrian bridges remaining over Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor neighborhood. (Courtesy of the Special Collections Research Center, in Philadelphia. Temple University Libraries, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)

20 June 2019 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 dangerous situation.3 In urban areas, all of these issues were compounded. 1936 photograph of a complex grade crossing in Philadelphia, Any given grade crossing could include large groups of cars published in the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin. (Courtesy of the and pedestrians along with additional tracks serving local Special Collections Research Center, Temple University Libraries, streetcars. These were higher traffi c areas, and people grew Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) frustrated when waiting on passing trains. Trains, especially those carrying freight, could take a long time to pass through number of vehicles traveling on roads was limited, and their a crossing, leading some people to race in front of the trains to speed was slow compared to that of modern automobile traffi c. avoid the wait, often failing in their efforts. Warning signals at For this reason, laying tracks directly across existing roadways grade crossings evolved to better alert the public to oncoming did not present much of a safety concern. After all, there were trains. At busy intersections, fl agmen were introduced to let potential benefi ts to employing this construction technique, motorists and pedestrians know when a train was approaching. such as completing rail lines faster and improving operating When it was discovered that the fl agmen were not always effi ciency by avoiding curves and hills wherever possible. Over easily seen — or were ignored despite having been seen — time, as traffi c increased on roads, and railroads became more gates were installed, and fl agmen became gate operators. Even important, safety concerns were exacerbated as road networks still, many drivers would simply drive around the gates out of extended and grade crossings became more numerous. impatience. In 1920, the New York Central System conducted At-grade crossings, often referred to as “grade crossings,” a study observing 7,779 people at a particular railroad crossing. of roads and railways caused safety issues for pedestrians and Of those observed, they found that only 359 looked both ways horse-drawn vehicles. In 1855, a train struck a horse-drawn before crossing, and not one single individual stopped, looked carriage at a grade crossing near Burlington, New Jersey. The and listened.4 train had completed its crossing of the tracks and the driver, thinking it was safe, began to cross. Due to a complication with Solving A Complex Problem oncoming traffi c, the train was forced to reverse rapidly, moving The late 19th and early 20th centuries saw regular public back into the crossing. The rear car struck the horses, and the education campaigns on the part of the railroads and the train derailed, killing a number of passengers.1 In reporting on government in an effort to make people more aware of the dangers a grade crossing accident in Glassboro, New Jersey in 1888, the of grade crossings, but none proved effective.5 One example is Philadelphia Inquirer noted how common fatal grade crossing the American Railway Association’s 1922 “Careful Crossing accidents had become by that time. While crossing the tracks of Campaign.” A poster depicting a car about to collide with a train the West Jersey Railroad, a carriage was struck by an express at a grade crossing was mass produced along with the “Cross train from Atlantic City, killing one of the two passengers, as Crossings Cautiously Bulletin.” The poster was reproduced as well as the horse pulling the vehicle.2 In cities, trolley lines a sticker to be placed on outgoing mail by the Postal Service, also frequently needed to cross roads and railroads, further which ordered over six million to be sent throughout the complicating grade crossings and introducing more danger and country. More than half of U. S. movie theaters also projected risk for accidents. the poster as a slide in the reels preceding the show, and over The dangers of at-grade railroad crossings became 1.25 million copies of the bulletin were distributed throughout abundantly clear with the widespread use of the automobile the country, as well as in Canada. President Warren G. Harding on the American roadway beginning in the early 20th century. stated that campaigns like these were essential “to arouse in the The relatively sudden presence of a large number of fast- minds of drivers a sense of their personal responsibility. When moving vehicles jetting across the tracks caused a number of thoughtlessness is allowed to usurp the place of vigilance, as issues. While signs at crossings prompted people to “STOP, too often happens, the scene is set for tragedy.”6

June 2019 21 would only have to travel on slight detours to fi nd a through route. There were other issues with this approach beyond the inconvenience to traffi c of closing a 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.11 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 was closed to vehicular traffi c which, at that time, consisted primarily of horse-drawn vehicles. A number of footbridges were built to protect pedestrians and aid in their crossing over the railroad throughout Philadelphia and the surrounding suburbs, though surviving pedestrian bridges 1922 American Railway Association poster, the hallmark of its 12 national Caref ul Crossing Campaign. (National Safety News) over the present-day NEC in Pennsylvania are rare. The Wheatsheaf Lane Pedestrian Bridge is the longest and oldest of four known surviving pedestrian bridges along the NEC in President Harding supported the Careful Crossing Campaign, Pennsylvania.13 The three other bridges are smaller in scale, but noted that the best solution by this time was clearly to each comprised of a single span, and were built by the PRR in eliminate grade crossings wherever possible.7 Ideally, the the 1920s.14 railroad would construct an over-grade bridge or under-grade The four surviving examples along the NEC in Pennsylvania passage at each dangerous grade crossing, allowing motorists, can be split into two categories: bridges built in an urban setting pedestrians and street cars to pass unencumbered and out of to keep public streets open to foot traffi c while removing harm’s way.8 The solution was a complicated one, though. As dangerous at-grade railroad crossings, and those in more early as 1888, the city of Philadelphia acknowledged the need suburban settings built in response to a specifi c public need. An for the construction of bridges to avoid grade crossings, while example of the latter is the Rosemont Avenue Pedestrian Bridge noting that a conversation needed to take place between the city in Ridley Park, which was presumably built to facilitate safe and the PRR to arrange terms and come to an understanding of access for students who had to cross the tracks to get to school. each side’s responsibilities and obligations.9 The engineering Overall, the four bridges were all designed as public safety of grade separations could also be complicated, especially in solutions, helping to keep pedestrian traffi c and rail traffi c urban areas with dense street grids and numerous crossings separate and open where a complete separation of a crossing grouped relatively close together. was not an option.15 Given all of the safety issues surrounding grade crossings, especially the unnecessary deaths and injuries and destruction Frankford Junction of property, one would expect widespread public support for the The tracks of the P&T had directly crossed Wheatsheaf separation of these crossings. Unfortunately, this was not always Lane at grade since the railroad’s opening in 1834. At that the case. The act of altering the grade of either the roadway time, the crossing consisted of two tracks, similar to many or the railroad was a complex feat of engineering and resulted crossings found throughout Philadelphia, and was as dangerous in signifi cant changes to the surrounding landscape. Business as the average at-grade crossing. What created a more complex owners at crossings were not keen on the idea of an elevated crossing at Wheatsheaf Lane than others around the city was the bridge blocking views of and direct access to their stores. introduction of the tracks of a second rail line, the Connecting Residents worried about the effects these aesthetic changes to Railway, in 1867.16 the landscape would have on their property values. Railroads Though many rail lines connected Philadelphia with cutting through a town often resulted in the elevation of the neighboring cities, such as New York and Baltimore, as early as railroad grade above a number of crossings, creating a wall the 1830s, none of these lines historically interconnected within dividing the two sides. Underpasses forced not just vehicles the city.17 This meant that, while freight and passengers could but also pedestrians underground into long tunnels. All of these travel easily to and from Philadelphia in all directions, there issues could severely delay or completely stop grade crossing were no through connections available for rail traffi c from points 10 elimination projects. west and south traveling to points north. As one example, the A less popular but more straightforward solution was to tracks of the P&T began at Kensington Depot on Montgomery simply close a road where it crossed train tracks. This idea Street, east of Front Street, and traveled northeast to Trenton, was thought to be most useful in urban areas, where streets New Jersey. From there, the route provided through connections were relatively close together and motorists and pedestrians to New York City and beyond, but it did not connect with the

22 June 2019 location chosen for the junction with the existing P&T tracks was just north of the road.20 The confi guration of the tracks at the new connection, to be known as Frankford Junction, formed a wye, or a fork, with an additional pair of tracks now branching southwest across Wheatsheaf Lane. Pedestrian and cart traffi c along Wheatsheaf Lane was already complicated 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 confl icts between street and rail traffi c that much more hazardous. Upon completion of the Connecting Railway, the line was leased to the P&T, with both rail lines then being under 1886 Hopkins atlas (above) and 1888 Baist atlas (below), depicting the control of the “Joint Companies” of New Jersey. The the rapid addition of tracks at Frankford Junction and across powerful Joint Companies had held a veritable monopoly Wheatsheaf Lane in the late 19th century. (Courtesy of the Free on rail transportation in New Jersey since the centerpiece of Library of Philadelphia, Map Collection and the Athenaeum of Philadelphia) the company, the Camden & Amboy Railroad, was founded in 1832. The interests of the Joint Companies were extended into Pennsylvania in 1835 when they purchased a controlling interest 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 19th 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 P&T.21 rail lines serving the center of Philadelphia or those continuing Over time, the importance of Frankford Junction increased, south and west to Baltimore and Harrisburg.18 In an effort to as it continued to serve as the connecting point between the establish a rail connection through the center of Philadelphia, Connecting Railway and the P&T.22 In anticipation of the the Connecting Railway was created. The new railroad linked 1876 Centennial Exhibition in Philadelphia, the PRR widened the existing P&T tracks to the existing tracks of the PRR to the the right-of-way of the P&T from two to four tracks in key southwest, on the west side of the Schuylkill River.19 locations, including Frankford Junction.23 As the center of The construction of the Connecting Railway quickly railroad traffi c in the northeastern portion of the city, there was complicated the rail crossings over Wheatsheaf Lane, as the heightened demand for a rail yard at this location.24 A north and

1901 Bromley atlas (left) and 1910 Smith atlas (right), illustrating the continued expansion of the rail lines at Frankford Junction and across Wheatsheaf Lane in the fi rst decade of the 20th century. Note the presence of the pedestrian bridge in line with Wheatsheaf Lane on the 1910 map. Though constructed in 1899, the bridge is absent from the 1901 map. (Courtesy of the Free Library of Philadelphia, Map Collection and the Philadelphia Historical Commission)

June 2019 23 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 Wheatsheaf Lane. The pedestrian bridge had been expanded further to the south by the time this map was created. (Courtesy of the Pennsylvania State University Libraries) a south receiving yard grew up rapidly around the junction in the 1880s. By 1888, the yard at Frankford Junction had been clearly established, consisting of approximately 11 tracks all crossing Wheatsheaf Lane.25 The railyard at Frankford Junction continued to expand throughout the 1890s. Upwards of 15 separate tracks crossed Wheatsheaf Lane in 1891.26 In 1896, the Delaware River Railroad & Bridge Company rail line opened to traffi c.27 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 led to further growth of the yard. In 1899, the city of Philadelphia built a pedestrian bridge 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 engine house and turntable to the south yard.28 Between 1910 and 1920, the PRR continued to expand the yard, most notably with the construction of 29 a number of railroad sidings within the north yard. By 1949 photograph by Richard Parker of a GG1 electric locomotive 1920, approximately 32 separate tracks passed beneath the at Frankford Junction. The Wheatsheaf Lane Pedestrian Bridge is Wheatsheaf Lane Pedestrian Bridge, which had been expanded visible to the right of the locomotive, with the circa 1920 southeast to the southeast, in conjunction with the growth of the yards. 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. (Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania, PHMC)

24 June 2019 The Wheatsheaf Lane Pedestrian Bridge The sheer number of tracks crossing Wheatsheaf Lane by the Philadelphia Law Department.32 The articles of agreement 1890 created a public safety predicament that could not be allowed for construction of the pedestrian bridge to fi nally ignored. With the continued growth of Frankford Junction and move forward, and further refi ned the portion of Wheatsheaf the related rail yard, it became clear to the city of Philadelphia Lane to be vacated, allowing the road to remain open between that a safe means of crossing the tracks was necessary. On the northwest edge of the railroad right-of-way and Coral July 2, 1890, the Select and Common Councils of the city of Street. Finally, in June of 1898, the Common Council of the Philadelphia passed an ordinance to do away with the “very city of Philadelphia reviewed an ordinance authorizing “the dangerous series of grade crossings” that bisected Wheatsheaf construction of a foot-bridge over the Pennsylvania Railroad Lane.30 The ordinance authorized the Department of Public at Wheat Sheaf lane.”33 Two months later, $5,000 was made Works to revise city plans to close the street to traffi c between available for the construction of the bridge.34 Coral and Amber streets. While keeping Wheatsheaf Lane The 1899 drawing for the Wheatsheaf Lane Pedestrian open to vehicular traffi c would have been ideal, the size of the Bridge shows that the bridge was designed by the city of Frankford Junction yard and the sheer number of tracks crossing Philadelphia’s Department of Public Works and approved by Wheatsheaf Lane at grade — along with the relatively dense the chief engineer of the PRR. Though a specifi c designer for network of streets and established industries and residential the bridge is not known, Samuel Gourley Jr was the contractor blocks surrounding the yard — made elevation or depression for the project. Gourley, a Philadelphia builder and contractor of the tracks at this location diffi cult, if not impossible. For this practicing out of offi ces he shared with his father, Samuel reason, the less desirable solution was employed at Wheatsheaf Gourley Sr, at 21st Street and Ridge Avenue, had been the Lane. The vehicular crossing would be abolished, and pedestrian lowest bidder for the project. Gourley’s supervision of the traffi c would be elevated. work involved checking 18 shop drawings, the preparation It would take nine years for the road to close and the of four supplementary drawings and fi eld supervision of the pedestrian bridge to be completed. The 1890 ordinance was work. The Phoenix Iron Works in Phoenixville, Pennsylvania complex. In addition to the closing of Wheatsheaf Lane and the manufactured metalwork for the bridge. Gourley received construction of the pedestrian bridge, the ordinance included notice to begin work on March 24, 1899 and, on September alterations to a number of streets around the yard and called 8, construction of the Wheatsheaf Lane Pedestrian Bridge was for the construction of a P&T bridge over nearby Butler Street, completed, with the fi nal payment made to the contractors on eliminating a second dangerous grade crossing in the area. The September 21.35 P&T was to be responsible for the construction of the railroad The continued expansion of Frankford Junction in the bridge at Butler Street, while the city would build the pedestrian early 20th century, and specifi cally the addition of numerous bridge along the alignment of Wheatsheaf Lane.31 railroad sidings across the line of Wheatsheaf Lane south of The agreement was further complicated by the number the pedestrian bridge, required the extension of the bridge to of parties involved. For example, in 1897, the PRR, the P&T maintain the safe passage of foot traffi c across the yard. Though and the Connecting Railway fi led articles of agreement with a specifi c construction date for the southeastern addition is

1899 drawing of the proposed foot bridge at Wheatsheaf Lane. (Courtesy of the Amtrak Archives)

June 2019 25 1899 photograph of the Wheatsheaf Lane Bridge upon completion. (City of Philadelphia Annual Report for 1899) unknown, it was clearly in place by 1920, at which time it of safety equipment and signals, some work does include the was depicted on an insurance map of the yard.36 The two-span complete elimination of grade crossings. The rail plan also notes Pratt through truss addition to the bridge is similar in style and the importance of Operation Lifesaver, a national nonprofi t design to another surviving pedestrian bridge along the NEC organization working with railroads to educate the public in in Philadelphia, the Central Avenue Pedestrian Bridge, which hopes of ending railroad-related accidents, especially those at was built by the PRR in 1924.37 It is likely that the southeastern grade crossings.39 addition was constructed by the railroad in conjunction with When it was built in 1899, the Wheatsheaf Lane Pedestrian other work at Frankford Junction. Bridge increased public safety and the safety of railroad crew Despite the increased length of the bridge, at-grade crossings and passengers by eliminating a dangerous and complex grade lingered along Wheatsheaf Lane in the vicinity of Frankford crossing. Today, the bridge poses a danger to those it was Junction. In 1917, two additional rail sidings were constructed designed to protect. Although the bridge must be removed to across the road east of the southeastern end of the pedestrian ensure safe rail travel, it should be remembered as a representative bridge. The sidings provided direct access to the American example of an important trend in the development of railroads Engineering Company’s machine house.38 Though the sidings and the evolution of grade crossing design. likely saw somewhat limited use with trains traveling at relatively low speeds, their construction beyond the reach of Lynn M. Alpert is a senior architectural the pedestrian bridge is one example of how diffi cult it was to historian at RGA, Inc., a cultural keep pedestrian, vehicular and rail traffi c separate, despite the resources consulting fi rm based in best intentions of the city and the railroad companies. Cranbury, New Jersey. She received her master’s degree in historic preservation Grade Crossings Today from the University of Pennsylvania’s All of the historic at-grade crossings along the NEC have School of Design in 2011. Her work long been removed, though numerous railroad grade crossings with historic railroads includes research remain outside of the NEC in Pennsylvania. Improvement and writing on the Old Main Delaware, projects where these crossings remain continue on rail lines Lackawanna & Western Railroad in New throughout the Commonwealth to this day. The Pennsylvania Jersey, the Junction & Breakwater Railroad in Delaware and Department of Transportation (PennDOT) highlights the need the Pennsylvania Railroad. On the latter, Lynn has focused in for grade crossing safety improvements and continued detail on the early 20th century electrifi cation of the present- elimination, where feasible, in its 2015 rail plan for the day Northeast Corridor and the construction of the North Commonwealth. The plan notes that in 2015 there were 3,470 (Hudson) River Tunnels connecting New Jersey and New York public highway-rail grade crossings in Pennsylvania. Utilizing City. A Philadelphia native, Lynn has worked with preservation funds from the Federal Section 130 Crossing Improvement groups and nonprofi ts in the region, including Eastern State Program, PennDOT is working to eliminate hazards and Penitentiary, Partners for Sacred Places and the Preservation improve safety conditions at these crossings. While the majority Alliance for Greater Philadelphia. of these improvements involve the installation and upgrading

26 June 2019 NOTES 26 George W. Bromley and Walter S. Bromley, Atlas of the City of 1 “Lamentable Railroad Accident,” Philadelphia Daily News, Philadelphia, Volume 9, 25th & 33rd Wards (Philadelphia: G.W. August 30, 1855. Bromley & Co., 1891). 2 “Grade Crossing Accident,” Philadelphia Inquirer, February 25, 27 Giannantonio, “Frankford Junction in the Sixties,” 26. 1888, 1. 28 URS Corporation, Historic Context Study, 7; George W. Bromley 3 John R. Stilgoe, Metropolitan Corridor: Railroads and the and Walter S. Bromley, Atlas of the City of Philadelphia American Scene (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), (Philadelphia: G.W. Bromley & Co., 1901). 173-177. 29 Sanborn Map Company, Insurance Maps of Philadelphia, 4 Stilgoe, Metropolitan Corridor, 175-177. Pennsylvania, Volume 10 (New York: Sanborn Map Company, 1920); Elvino V. Smith, Atlas of the 25th and 45th Wards of the 5 Stilgoe, Metropolitan Corridor, 168. City of Philadelphia (Philadelphia: Elvino V. Smith, C.E., 1910). 6 “Careful Crossing Campaign Gets National Support” National 30 Ordinances of the City of Philadelphia, from January 1, to Safety News 6:1 (1922): 34. December 31, 1890 (Philadelphia: Dando Printing and Publishing 7 “Careful Crossing Campaign…,” 34. Company, 1890), 267. 8 Stilgoe, Metropolitan Corridor, 181. 31 Ordinances of the City of Philadelphia…, 267. 9 “Bridging the Crossings…,” Philadelphia Inquirer, October 25, 32 Ordinances of the City of Philadelphia, from January 1, to 1888, 3. December 31, 1897 (Philadelphia: Dunlap Printing Company, 10 Stilgoe, Metropolitan Corridor, 184-187. 1898), 7. 11 Stilgoe, Metropolitan Corridor, 181. 33 Journal of the Common Council of the City of Philadelphia, 12 Minute Books, Philadelphia and Trenton Railroad Company, Volume II (Philadelphia: Dunlap Printing Company, 1898), 198. Penn Central Records, New Jersey State Archives; Minute Books, 34 Fourth Annual Message of Charles F. Warwick, Mayor of the Connecting Railway Company, Pennsylvania Railroad Records, City of Philadelphia, with Annual Reports, for the Year Ending Special Collections Research Center, Temple University Libraries. December 31, 1898, Volume III (Philadelphia: Dunlap Printing 13 URS Corporation, Historic Context Study: Pedestrian Bridges on Company, 1899), 203. Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor in Pennsylvania (Fort Washington: 35 First Annual Message of Samuel H. Ashbridge, Mayor of the City URS Corporation, 2013), 11. of Philadelphia, with Annual Reports, Year Ending December 31, 14 URS Corporation, Historic Context Study, 8. 1899, Volume II (Philadelphia: Dunlap Printing Company, 1900), 295; Sandra L. Tatman, “Biography of Samuel Gourley, Jr.,” 15 URS Corporation, Historic Context Study, 8-9. American Architects and Buildings Database, accessed January 16 Albert J. Churella, The Pennsylvania Railroad, Volume I: Building 16, 2016, http://philadelphiabuildings.org. An Empire, 1846-1917 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania 36 Sanborn Map Company, Insurance Maps of Philadelphia, Press, 2013), 353; URS Corporation, Historic Context Study, 7. Pennsylvania, Volume 10 17 URS Corporation, Historic Context Study, 5. 37 URS Corporation, Historic Context Study, 11. 18 R. L. Barnes, Barnes’ Map of Philadelphia: Built Portion of the 38 Thomas B. Smith, “An Ordinance to Authorize…,” Philadelphia City (Philadelphia: R. L. Barnes, 1859). Inquirer, June 26, 1917, 19. 19 R. L. Barnes, Barnes Map of the Whole Incorporated City of 39 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, 2015 Pennsylvania Philadelphia (Philadelphia: R. L. Barnes, 1867). State Rail Plan (Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Department of 20 G. M. Hopkins, Atlas of the City of Philadelphia, 25th Ward Transportation, 2016), accessed June 6, 2017, http://www.penndot. (Philadelphia: G.M. Hopkins, C.E., 1886). gov/Doing-Business/RailFreightAndPorts/Planning/Documents, 21 Churella, The Pennsylvania Railroad, 353-355. 2-110 – 2-113. 22 URS Corporation, Historic Context Study, 7. 23 Churella, The Pennsylvania Railroad, 355. 24 Albert J. Giannantonio, “Frankford Junction in the Sixties,” High Line, Winter 2007, 26. 25 G. Wm. Baist, Baist’s Atlas of the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Philadelphia: G. Wm. Baist, 1888).

2018 photograph of the Central Avenue Pedestrian Bridge, built by the Pennsylvania Railroad in 1924 and one of the few surviving pedestrian bridges along the Northeast Corridor. The design of the bridge is similar to that of the early 20th century addition to the Wheatsheaf Lane Bridge. (Lynn M. Alpert Photo, courtesy of the photographer)

June 2019 27