also were halted in southern New Jersey by the storm; Chalkley Matlack “saw the smoke of an engine at the Maple Shade Station [on Tuesday morning from his farm] and had my suspicions aroused that a train was probably blocked there, … discovered it had been since the preceding morning and that there was little likelihood of it getting away soon.”36
Even less dramatic snowstorms disrupted the horse-drawn streetcars in the city. One morning in 1880, John Smith noted that it had “Blowed + snowed all night” and the “Car horses [were] having a Rough time.” Later that year, he walked to work during a snow storm because “I waited for a Car [and when one finally arrived, saw] such a gang Hanging on I made up my mind that If I wanted to get down town I would have to walk.” John Wilson, an engineer, voluntarily postponed a business trip to Reading one day in 1883 because of snow, only to have the lack of streetcar service the next day further delay the journey. A heavy snowstorm right before Christmas caused “trade [to be] very poor for this season” at Septimus Winner’s music store, largely because the “cars and travel [were] almost closed up.”37
Although the cable cars and the trolleys were less affected by snow than were the horse cars, storms could interfere with service and, in the case of the electric trolleys, down the overhead electrical lines that supplied the power. During a heavy snow in 1895, Leo Bernheimer noted that most of the trolleys and horse cars had stopped and the “cable being almost the only cars going.” During a storm in 1899, Mary Smith observed that “Heavy snow all day long Street cars and steam roads completely blocked by evening. Market Street and Lancaster Avenue cars only ones running in West Philadelphia.”38
Nature was not the only force that could halt the smooth flow of Philadelphia’s transportation system and middle-class Philadelphians’ travels. Far more common were streetcar accidents. Many were fairly minor; they might disrupt service but caused no major injuries to passengers or crews. During the Centennial, one newspaper reporter witnessed three “narrow escapes” involving streetcars in just ninety minutes. All three he blamed on the “incautioness and carelessness on the part of the passengers,” a sentiment certainly to be echoed by the companies’ lawyers. Leo Bernheimer was a frequent witness to all sorts of mishaps. Once, while on his way to his uncle’s house in South Philadelphia, Bernheimer saw a derailed cable car but noted no injured people. Often in the 1890s, he was delayed because of minor electrical problems with the then-new trolleys, a useful reminder that cutting-edge technology is seldom perfect. More seriously, many passengers sustained minor injuries when they were entering or exiting the cars. Bernheimer ran into friend “with his face all bandaged. Had missed his hold yesterday while boarding a Woodland Trolley. Not seriously hurt, though sufficient as a caution.” Injuries to passengers while they tried to board a moving trolley were common; about a year after seeing his bandaged friend, Bernheimer witnessed another accident on the same line: “Had just got in Woodland Av. car, … when we were a little past the church, a fellow jumped on the car and fell, looking as though he moved a somersault. The conductor stopped the car.… I don’t think it was the conductor’s fault.” The accidents, however, could be far more serious, even deadly. One morning, on his way to Penn, Bernheimer “had a close shave from a trolley collision. Cars at right angles almost crashing together, the tracks being slippery.” Other people were not so lucky, deadly accidents were not uncommon on the streets of Philadelphia in the late nineteenth century. Pedestrians were run over when they crossed the often busy streets of the city without being alert for the cars. The same reduction in friction that allowed the horse cars and trolleys to travel quickly also made them difficult to stop. Passengers also died from falls from the open platforms at the ends of the cars.39
Accidents also plagued the steam railroads that served the city. Trains derailed, ran into each other, and ran over pedestrians at grade crossings. The high train speeds that allowed middle-class Philadelphians to assert control over their environment contributed to these railroad accidents, as did the lack of effective safety regulation. John L. Smith had his “first Experience in R.R. accidents” on a Philadelphia & Reading train for New York in 1880 when “the Engine Broke the Piston Rod it Broke in Half + tore wood work of Locomotive fearful wonder it did not kill the Engineer.” No one was killed and Smith made it to New York only an hour behind schedule. Accidents at grade crossings (where streets met the tracks at level) were also common. On his way to school one morning, Leo Bernheimer noticed a crowd near the Philadelphia & Reading crossing “at 9th and Girard.… A man had been struck by a train. I have since learned that his name was Goldman, Jewish. He died.” These crossings were dangerous in part because the space between the railroad and the pedestrian was poorly defined (a topic that will be revisited in Chapter 2).40
During the late nineteenth century a number of strikes against the railroads and traction companies also disrupted service. Most of the labor actions were short in duration. In 1887, for example, there was a strike against the Philadelphia & Reading that lasted for only a few days and had little impact on passenger service.41
On December 17, 1895, however, workers struck the newly formed Union Traction Company (which by then operated most of the trolley and streetcar service in the city) at the peak of the Christmas shopping season and maintained the action for a week. Leo Bernheimer noted by the afternoon of the first day of the strike that “practically none [of the city’s transport services] except the Broad St Bus, and the Hestonville, Mantua RR. cars are going Most of the people have to walk.” Although the labor action did not last long, it was a crucial event in the world of middle-class Philadelphia. By 1895, many bourgeois families had used the trolley to separate home from work and shopping. No longer could they easily walk to their daily destinations, and people coped as best they could. The traction company’s attempt to operate service with police escorts met with limited success because of the combination of union solidarity, public support for the strike, and violence. Leo Bernheimer rode some of these “scab cars” and his experiences were not positive. Early in the strike he “took a car, a Market Streeter then coming along, police fore x aft and four mounted police as escort to the bridge [over the Schuylkill River]. The conductor said he would not make the next trip, had had enough.” Later, Bernheimer rode another trolley “with a ’scab’ conductor. He had no uniform on and did not seem to be a conductor. The remarks made about him were not complimentary. He seemed to be a very poor man, and anything but happy. I felt very sorry for him.” Bernheimer, like other middle-class Philadelphians, also took the steam trains (all three of the railroads serving the city continued to operate) and “huckster wagons” to work and shopping (see figure 7 for the triumph of practicality over bourgeois respectability during the strike) . Mary Smith’s father either walked the two miles to work or took a crowded train on the nearby Pennsylvania Railroad.42
Despite the violence, many middle-class Philadelphians supported the strike because of their dislike of the new traction monopoly. Albert Edmunds, a librarian at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania and no friend of organized labor, recorded, “General strike of motormen and conductors of the Union Traction Company, which has created popular disapproval of late by raising fares and reducing wages.” Septimus Winner, a small-business owner, expressed his toleration of the violence: “A magnificent’ day, splendid for pedestrians, we all had to walk on account of the Great Strike in opposition to the ‘Trolley Grab’ of double fare 8 cents. A very exciting day all over the City big rows, cars smashed and lots of fun.” Another indication of the anti-monopoly feeling was the “people going along with cards on their hats, saying ‘we are walking,’” noted by both Edmunds and Winner.43
Figure 7. The victory of practicality over respectability: passengers on a huckster wagon during trolley strike. Courtesy of the Print and Picture Collection, Free Library of Philadelphia.
The strike ended on Christmas Eve with a partial victory for the union. The workers received a small wage increase
