Texas Railroad History - Tower 100 - Elgin

A Crossing of the Houston & Texas Central Railway and the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway

Left: Southern Pacific #894 obscures the Elgin Union Depot in the background as it passes Tower 100 eastbound in this undated photo. (Bruce Wilson collection)

Left: John W. Barriger III took this photo of Tower 100 from the rear platform of his business car sometime in the 1930s or perhaps the early 1940s. His camera is facing north as his train proceeds south on the Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railway main line toward Smithville. The tower sat in the southeast quadrant of the crossing, diagonally across from Elgin Union Depot. (John W Barriger III National Railroad Library)

The Galveston & Red River (G&RR) Railway was chartered in 1848 with a grand plan to connect the port of Galveston with the Red River. Railroads from the Midwest were anticipated to bridge the river and enter Texas from Indian Territory (Oklahoma) creating an important export route for grain and other commodities. Unable to raise sufficient capital, the project languished until an unrelated opportunity arose; farming interests in Chappell Hill needed better transportation to the Houston market. Chappell Hill was only sixty miles northwest of Houston but it was west of the flood-prone Brazos River, a wide and formidable obstacle. A meeting to discuss Chappell Hill's transportation issues was held in 1852 and attended by Paul Bremond, one of the founders of the G&RR. He suggested that in exchange for financial backing from Chappell Hill investors, the G&RR could be re-chartered to start construction in Houston and pass near Chappell Hill while remaining east of the Brazos. A branch line would be needed to reach Chappell Hill because bridging the Brazos was unnecessary for the G&RR's route to the Red River. Bremond's proposal was accepted and the Legislature approved the change in 1853.

In 1856, the G&RR completed its first 25 miles out of Houston to Cypress, arriving there just as the Legislature approved another charter amendment granting the railroad a new name, the Houston & Texas Central (H&TC) Railway. Much to the chagrin of Chappell Hill's resident investors, the amendment prohibited H&TC from building branch lines until the tracks to the Red River were completed. However, a plan had been in development by businessmen in the nearby town of Brenham, west of Chappell Hill, to build a railroad to connect to the H&TC. The Washington County Rail Road (WCRR) would pass through Chappell Hill on its route to a planned bridge over the Brazos River. The WCRR charter was granted by the Legislature in February, 1856, and by the end of that year, the Hempstead Town Co. was being organized to sell lots at a town site chosen to be the H&TC connecting point for the WCRR.

In 1858, the H&TC reached Hempstead from Cypress and continued construction north toward Navasota. The WCRR began construction westward from Hempstead in June, 1858 -- starting there allowed construction materials to be shipped from Galveston by rail on the H&TC. Seven miles of track reaching the east bank of the Brazos River was in place by early 1859. Bridging the Brazos took two years; the first train from Hempstead to Chappell Hill ran in early 1861. The WCRR line was finished soon thereafter with service into Brenham in April, 1861. Left: Houston Weekly Telegraph, February 5, 1861 As the Civil War intensified, the H&TC terminated northward construction at Millican, ten rail miles north of Navasota.

The WCRR continued operating during the War. Author S. G. Reed in his classic reference tome A History of the Texas Railroads (St. Clair Publishing, 1941) explained that ultimately ...

"... it could not meet its obligations and on June 2, 1868, was sold under foreclosure. The Sheriff happened to be W. M. Sledge, the man who had built the road as a contractor, and who owned three-fifths of the stock. He was the purchaser. The roadbed needed repairs and the equipment was almost worn out, and the Washington County people wanted it extended to the Capital at Austin. Sledge was not able to do so himself, so on March 11, 1869, he sold it to the H. & T. C."

This was not Sledge's first rodeo ... railroad. In 1867, a court judgment for non-payment of his construction contract for the Buffalo Bayou, Brazos & Colorado (BBB&C) Railway resulted in Sledge owning the BBB&C (he sold it to Thomas Peirce in 1870.) As the new owner of the WCRR, Sledge owed the H&TC $80,000 for repair work, so he extinguished the debt by selling the WCRR to the H&TC. Though the H&TC charter prevented the railroad from building branch lines prior to reaching the Red River, it did not prevent the H&TC from investing in branch lines built by other railroads. Its founders had projected two major branch lines to the west, one of which would go to Austin and beyond, ultimately turning northwest toward the Texas Panhandle. Extending the WCRR west to Austin fit the H&TC's plans, and of course, no one in Austin (least of all legislators who had to travel there periodically) complained about the H&TC violating its charter by spending money on a branch line. Construction began in 1870 when the H&TC built 42 miles from Brenham to a point six miles past Giddings. The remaining 51 miles to Austin was built in 1871. The first train into Austin arrived on Christmas Day, about a year before the H&TC's northward construction reached Denison near the Red River.

The WCRR and the extension to Austin were built at state gauge, 5 ft. 6 in., as required by state law (narrow gauge, 3 ft., was also permitted.) Many states (and the Transcontinental Railroad) used standard gauge, 4 ft. 8.5 in., thus interstate traffic exchange was problematic for Texas railroads. In the early 1870s, state gauge fell into disfavor, and exceptions to Texas' law were being allowed. The H&TC main line north of Corsicana was built c.1871 at standard gauge. By 1874, most Texas railroads were looking to switch to standard gauge, and the law was changed in 1875. Right: The Denison Daily News of September 9, 1874 quotes the Houston Telegraph celebrating the news that the H&TC was changing the Corsicana - Hearne tracks to standard gauge. The Telegraph also noted that the Hearne - Hempstead tracks needed to be changed. A "third rail" from Hempstead to Houston would then allow operations at both gauges, i.e. for Austin trains at state gauge and for trains north of Hempstead at standard gauge. H&TC's branch to Austin was converted to standard gauge in 1877.

As the H&TC built toward Austin in 1871, a new settlement, Glasscock, became a flag stop in Bastrop County. When the town was platted in 1872, the name was changed to Elgin in honor of Robert Elgin, the land commissioner and surveyor for the H&TC. The town of Elgin was fifteen miles north of the county seat, Bastrop, which did not have rail service despite years of trying to find investors interested in laying tracks to Austin. Elgin's economy was based on farming, but in 1884, a brick manufacturing facility opened. Elgin became widely known as a brick-making center, an industry ideally served by rail transportation. Elgin's economy was further stimulated when a second railroad, the Missouri, Kansas & Texas (MK&T, "Katy") Railroad, began construction at Elgin in June, 1886.

The Katy had bridged the Red River into Denison in December, 1872 under a Texas law passed two years earlier that allowed it to rely on its Kansas charter for building into Texas. The law also granted permission for the Katy to build south to the Rio Grande but it did not do so immediately; it simply exchanged traffic with the H&TC. In 1879, Jay Gould was named President of the Katy, an outcome attributable to loyalists sent by Gould to infiltrate Katy management over a period of several years. The Katy's stock was so diluted that buying a controlling interest - the usual Gould playbook - was infeasible as there was inadequate market circulation and no large private blocks for sale.

In December, 1880, Gould leased the Katy to Missouri Pacific (MP), a major Midwest railroad in which he had significant ownership. The lease had onerous terms that allowed Gould to siphon Katy profits into MP for his financial gain while Katy stockholders fared poorly. MP did not have a Texas railroad charter nor was it headquartered in state as required by an amendment to the Texas Constitution in 1876. Thus, new MP track construction was titled to the Katy. The Katy also lacked a Texas headquarters but Gould was unfazed, relying on the 1870 law for permission to build Katy tracks in Texas south toward Mexico. Gould presented the work to the public as an MP activity -- the Katy became invisible for several years as Gould built MP depots in towns that were happy to have a railroad. From Denison south through Fort Worth, Waco and Temple, the MP (Katy) tracks reached Taylor on May 1, 1882, connecting there with the International & Great Northern (I&GN) Railroad, Texas' largest railroad. A year earlier, Gould had forced the I&GN to acquiesce to a takeover using a swap for Katy stock once he obtained control of the two railroads upon which the I&GN was dependent for access to the Midwest market via Texarkana. The I&GN had tracks from Longview to Laredo via Palestine, Austin and San Antonio, and from Palestine to Houston. Since the Katy wasn't headquartered in Texas, Gould kept its ownership of the I&GN hidden among murky financial relationships. He publicly leased the I&GN to the Katy to maintain this facade, and the I&GN operated under its own name. Gould paused MP (Katy) construction at Taylor in 1882 due to the political climate in the Legislature which had repealed the railroad land grant law and lowered authorized passenger fares. In 1885, Gould decided to resume construction on a route from Taylor through Elgin and Bastrop to Smithville where it would turn east toward Houston. Such route would be comfortably south of SP's H&TC (Austin - Houston) line but well north of SP's GH&SA (San Antonio - Houston) line. The work began in April, 1886 under a new charter, the Bastrop & Taylor (B&T) Railway. The charter was amended on October 27, 1886 to increase its capitalization and change the name to the Taylor, Bastrop & Houston (TB&H) Railway. The TB&H was operated by the Katy and would later be consolidated into it. Left: The Austin Weekly Statesman of March 19, 1885 carried this story discussing a VIP meeting about a potential railroad from Taylor to Bastrop, a 35-mile straight line with Elgin at the midpoint. The reporter correctly surmised that the presence of Herbert M. "Hub" Hoxie, General Superintendent of the I&GN, meant that rail baron Jay Gould was backing the plan. The "Huntington" reference was to SP President C. P. Huntington. SP had acquired the H&TC in 1883, making the line through Elgin part of SP's network.

Austin businessmen were apoplectic about the prospect of a Taylor - Houston route via Bastrop. Bastrop was on the Colorado River 28 miles downstream from Austin. It had no railroad but it was a county seat with 2,000 residents and was a major cotton producing area. Bastrop had long been dependent on Austin for many commercial activities, but the sudden realization that Gould's railroad would capture Bastrop commerce for Elgin, Taylor and Houston stoked fear among Austin's business community. As plans for a railroad into Bastrop solidified, the Bastrop Advertiser roundly criticized the Austin Statesman for suddenly promoting the idea of a Taylor - Bastrop - Austin alternative routing after years of failing to advocate for an Austin - Bastrop railroad. The Advertiser described the Statesman as  "...suddenly waking up from a long Rip Van Winkle sleep ... and discern[ing] ... the thousands of bales of Bastrop cotton and hundreds of thousands of dollars of Bastrop patronage which will be annually lost to Austin..."

Austin business leaders were also concerned that the new line would reduce freight traffic through Austin. As long as the MP (Katy) tracks had been terminated at Taylor, traffic between Denison and San Antonio / Laredo arriving at Taylor had to operate via the I&GN through Austin. But Bastrop and Smithville were both within fifty miles of San Marcos which was on the I&GN south of Austin. A branch to connect San Marcos with Bastrop or Smithville would be an obvious move for Gould. Indeed, Smithville was ultimately selected for the branch based on where Gould chose to cross the Colorado River. Denison - San Antonio / Laredo trains could bypass Austin using a Taylor - Smithville - San Marcos routing. As an added plus, a branch line between Smithville and San Marcos would pass through Lockhart, the county seat of Caldwell County, another source of passengers and commerce.

Left:  The Galveston Daily News of June 4, 1886 reported on a ceremony at Elgin signifying the start of construction. Elgin was chosen because rail and other materials arriving at the Port of Galveston could be shipped there on the H&TC. The article's reference to the "Bastrop, Elgin and Taylor road" was geographic, not the name of the railroad. The TB&H name was formally adopted four months later when the charter was amended. Right: The Fort Worth Daily Gazette of June 17, 1887 reported completion of the Colorado River bridge at Bastrop. As anticipated, Smithville got the shops and the branch line to San Marcos via Lockhart. The San Antonio & Aransas Pass (SA&AP, not a Gould railroad) was building north toward Waco, causing speculation that it would build through Smithville. It passed 9 miles east through West Point instead.

Gould initiated work on the branch line between San Marcos and Smithville with a construction contract let in May of 1887. Track-laying started at San Marcos and went east to Lockhart, but it stopped there, 36 miles shy of Smithville, as dark financial clouds began to impair Gould's activities in late 1887. The Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway, part of MP's family of leased railroads, had entered receivership, and this created financial stress throughout the MP network. The TB&H construction had continued beyond Bastrop during the latter part of 1887, reaching Smithville and La Grange. When the financial turmoil hit, the TB&H construction stopped eleven miles east of La Grange, a location in the proverbial middle of nowhere that the railroad named Boggy Tank. A turntable and siding tracks were installed so that trains moving supplies and workers could turn around. As all of this was happening, Gould was also under attack by new Texas Attorney General James S. (Jim) Hogg. Hogg had been elected in November, 1886 on a campaign to go after railroads for poor service, poor facilities and price-fixing, and he had promptly sued both the Katy and the I&GN. To add to Gould's misery, Katy stockholders were trying to hold a special meeting so they could fire him. With very little personal ownership of Katy stock, Gould was vulnerable to the stockholders, but only if they could summon a quorum for an official meeting, which Gould tried to prevent in various ways.

Katy stockholders were finally able to hold an official meeting in May, 1888, and they fired Gould for malfeasance associated with MP's lease. New Katy management promptly sought bankruptcy protection and a court declaration that MP's lease was unlawful. Before Katy management could fire Gould a second time - as President of the I&GN, owned by the Katy - Gould used a clever ploy to force the I&GN into a quick receivership so that he would be protected by the bankruptcy court, buying time for additional moves. Gould proceeded by admitting privately to Hogg that the Katy really was the I&GN's owner (which Hogg had suspected but couldn't prove.) He also reminded Hogg that the Katy was a "foreign" railroad headquartered out of state. Hogg was livid, and he obtained a temporary injunction on behalf of the State to prevent the Katy from exercising any control over the I&GN, leaving Gould as President. Eventually, the Texas Supreme Court terminated MP's lease of the Katy while also declaring the Katy to be a "foreign" railroad because it lacked a Texas charter and a Texas headquarters. The Katy would operate under a court-appointed Receiver until a proper Texas charter could be granted by the Legislature. It still owned the I&GN but Hogg's injunction prevented any Katy action against Gould.

The Legislature passed the Katy charter law on October 28, 1891 granting rights to the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway of Texas, a newly created subsidiary of the parent Katy corporation. It would be headquartered in Denison and would be allowed to own most of its current Texas rail lines, but not the I&GN; Gould's delaying tactics had worked. The Legislature had soured on the idea of allowing the Katy to own Texas' largest railroad. The Katy had little choice but to sell the I&GN back to Gould for a paltry sum ( ... because no railroad would seriously bid for the I&GN against Gould, who still controlled the railroads that provided I&GN's access to the Midwest.) The end result was that Gould had full control of the I&GN and no involvement with the Katy. Unfortunately, Gould did not have much time to adjust to this new reality; he died in New York in December, 1892. His son George replaced him as President of MP, the I&GN, and various other Gould properties.

Jim Hogg was elected Governor in 1890 on a platform to establish a Railroad Commission of Texas (RCT) to begin regulating Texas railroads. Thus, it was Governor Hogg that signed the Katy charter bill in October, 1891. Long after he left office, Hogg died in March, 1906 from injuries suffered a year earlier in a derailment that occurred as he was riding on an I&GN train.

Left: This overview map shows the railroads in the vicinity of Elgin c.1904. It is apparent that Gould's initial TB&H planning included the branch to San Marcos because he otherwise could have avoided the expense of bridging the Colorado River. Remaining north of the river straight from Bastrop to La Grange was a simpler alternative that eliminated the need for two bridges. Both town centers were east and north of the river, hence no river crossing was needed to proceed to Houston. The tracks would have passed along the river bank across from Smithville and would likely have induced residents to shift the town center to the north side of the river (it's only a quarter mile south of the river today.) A branch to San Marcos would inevitably require a crossing of the Colorado. Gould's choice to have the branch depart from Smithville on the south side of the river created the need to cross the river again at La Grange to sustain an eastward heading to Houston. Ultimately, there were numbered interlocking plants at Elgin, Austin, San Marcos, West Point, Taylor, Rockdale and McNeil. Giddings never had a numbered interlocker despite gaining an additional rail line in 1914 when SP built the "Dalsa Cutoff" northeast from Giddings to Hearne. There was no interlocker at Round Rock because the I&GN / Katy crossing there was grade separated.

Newly freed from MP's yoke, the Katy resumed construction east from Boggy Tank in 1892 and reached Houston in 1893. There, it filed suit against the I&GN, claiming ownership of the Galveston, Houston & Henderson (GH&H) Railroad which had the most direct rail line between Houston and Galveston. Gould had bought the GH&H in 1882 and immediately sold it to the Katy, which in turn leased it to the I&GN (even though the Katy owned the I&GN; the lease was needed because the ownership had been kept secret.) The Katy argued that since it had actually owned the I&GN at the time of the lease, it was the rightful owner of the GH&H. George Gould negotiated a settlement wherein the Katy and the I&GN would each have 50% ownership of the GH&H and unlimited rights to operate over it.

The Katy also completed the San Marcos - Smithville branch line in 1892 by finishing the 36-mile track segment between Lockhart and Smithville. Since the Katy was no longer a Gould railroad, it had to negotiate a trackage rights agreement with the I&GN south from San Marcos to reach San Antonio, a major population center the Katy wanted to serve. Several years later, the Katy was forced by the Legislature to build its own set of tracks between San Marcos and San Antonio. Legislators wanted to improve rail competition in the San Antonio market so they added this construction requirement when the Katy sought an unrelated charter amendment in 1899; the new track segment was completed in 1901. Three years later, the Katy built a line into Austin that departed its main at Granger, eleven miles north of Taylor, and proceeded southwest through Georgetown and Round Rock. The Katy negotiated rights to use the I&GN main line from Austin to San Marcos where it connected with the Katy's Smithville branch and the new tracks to San Antonio.

Right: In 1903, the Katy and SP collaborated to build Elgin Union Depot in the northwest quadrant of the crossing, replacing an earlier wood structure. After passenger service to Elgin ended in 1957, the depot sat vacant and then was converted for use by the Elgin Police Department for thirty years ending in 1990. After another vacant period, the building reopened in 2002 hosting the Elgin Depot Museum operated by the Elgin Historical Association. This view looks north along the Katy. (Dave Ingles photo, 2012)

In 1901, a new Texas law to improve safety at grade crossings of two or more railroads required RCT to foster widespread deployment of electromechanical interlocking technology with trackside signals and derails, devices that had long been used in other states. The new regulations gave RCT approval authority of the interlocking design at each crossing, including a final inspection before the installed system could become operational. RCT was also given authority to specify whether a crossing should be "at grade" or grade-separated, occasionally resolving disputes among railroads (e.g. El Paso.) A numbering scheme for interlocking plants was adopted, with numbers assigned by RCT when railroads began corresponding with the Commission regarding an implementation order (or to request unsolicited permission for an interlocker.) As a result, interlocker numbers generally followed the chronology of when tower planning was instigated, but they do not precisely reflect the timing of when interlockers were commissioned for operation; some towers simply took longer to implement. The first to follow this process, Tower 1 at Bowie, was commissioned for operation on April 17, 1902.

The 1886-1887 TB&H construction at Elgin had crossed the H&TC at grade. By law, all trains were required to stop before proceeding over any crossing diamond. This didn't have much impact on trains through Elgin since the passenger and freight depots were located close to the crossing, i.e. virtually all trains would be stopping anyway. Regulations issued pursuant to the 1901 law required railroads to employ RCT-approved interlocking systems at crossings so that trains could operate safely while avoiding unnecessary stops. On June 5, 1902, RCT ordered 57 specific crossings to be interlocked within a year, but the Elgin crossing was not among them. Left: The Houston Daily Post of June 6, 1902 carried RCT's order in full, including this paragraph requiring gates to be installed at all grade crossings. Oddly, the order instructs that gates be designed primarily as a tool for investigating which railroad crashed into a gate! It also plainly required that, despite the presence of gates, "...all trains shall be brought to a full stop before proceeding..." Hence, there was little incentive for railroads to spend money to install gates other than fear of RCT action for non-compliance. Since all trains stopped anyway, gates had limited positive impact on crossing safety. Railroads complied, albeit slowly in many cases. When necessary, train crewmembers would disembark to swing a gate across the other track and latch it to the opposite gatepost. Where a track with infrequent traffic crossed a busy one, the gate would be opened to allow passage and then returned to its normal position against the lightly used line. At some point, trains began to approach gated crossings at restricted speeds such that a full stop could be made if a gate was observed to be closed, but the train could otherwise proceed without stopping. It is unclear whether RCT ever authorized "restricted speed" approaches. Permission may have evolved after the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) gained greater responsibility for railroad regulation in 1920. By the mid 1930s, railroads were soliciting ICC permission for modifications to interlocking plants and associated signals. RCT ostensibly still had a legal role, but its focus turned to regulation of Texas oil and gas production.

Railroads sometimes solicited permission to interlock a crossing, but they usually just waited for RCT to issue an order. Railroads could request a hearing to discuss or dispute the need and offer pertinent testimony. Left: RCT's order for an interlocker at Elgin was announced verbally at a hearing on December 10, 1912 and reported that same evening in the Galveston Tribune. Right: Two days later, RCT's order (issued 12-12-12) allowed six months for the interlocker at Elgin to be installed. It ultimately took fourteen months for Tower 100 to open there on February 7, 1914. (RCT 1913 Annual Report)

According to a table published annually by RCT, the interlocking plant at Tower 100 was a mechanical type that initially hosted 29 functions. This is substantially more than the normal minimum (twelve functions) indicating that the tower controlled additional signals, derails and switches for sidings and exchange tracks. The number of functions implemented by the Tower 100 interlocker varied somewhat over the years, culminating with a function count of 35 in the table published at the end of 1930 (after which RCT ceased publishing an annual comprehensive interlocker table.) Beginning in 1915 (and in subsequent years), RCT's table reported that SP had the responsibility for operating Tower 100. SP probably had the additional responsibility for tower and interlocker maintenance, as this was commonly coupled with operational staffing. Recurring operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, e.g. labor, materials and utilities, would have been shared with the Katy using an agreed formula, typically the ratio of each railroad's assigned interlocker functions compared to the total function count. At simple crossings, this was usually 50 / 50, but an interlocker with 29 functions was not simple; the precise expense split for Tower 100 is undetermined. It did not take long for Elgin residents to learn which company employed the tower operators, hence the tower became known as "the SP tower" around town. The Elgin Courier of May 28, 1942 reported on the opening of a new Western Union office downtown by reminding its readers that ... "After 5:30 pm each day messages are taken at the S. P. tower as here-to-fore."

That SP had staffing responsibility is no surprise because in the vast majority of cases, the company that took the lead on designing and erecting a tower also took responsibility for O&M staffing. And there is no doubt that Tower 100 was designed by SP. The exterior architecture matches that of virtually all SP-designed towers in Texas, e.g. Tower 81, Tower 95, Tower 115 and many others. A railroad would typically stay with a common architecture and interior arrangement for the towers it designed. This reduced non-recurring design expense by reusing specific features, with the added bonus that tower familiarity facilitated easier movement of personnel among multiple sites for temporary staffing support. Since the tracks at Elgin existed prior to 1901, RCT regulations required the two railroads to share equally the capital cost of the tower and its interlocking plant.

Right: The January, 1928 edition of Railway Signaling reported that the Katy planned to install a "table lever interlocking" at Elgin. This type of interlocker was based entirely on electric relays, avoiding the need for large "armstrong" levers that mechanical interlockers used for manipulating trackside devices. The frame for the control machine would be small enough to be installed on a table where the operator sat. The size of the new interlocking is not stated so it is possible that this covered additional functions beyond the existing mechanical interlocker. It could also have been a replacement for the existing plant, and if so, it's possible that the new machine was installed at the depot. This was not uncommon in converting from mechanical to electrical interlocking plants if there was a depot close by. The feasibility depended on how much train visibility was required and whether the view from the depot was adequate. The Katy taking the lead for this modification may indicate that it had instigated the upgrade since SP is known to have operated the tower.

Left: SP's employee timetable for its Dallas and Austin Divisions dated September 3, 1944 contained this table of whistle codes applicable to Tower 100. Whistle codes provided a means for locomotives to signal the tower to request specific switch and signal alignments. The July 20, 1958 Katy employee timetable lists the Tower 100 interlocker as automatic, but the preceding March 1, 1957 Katy timetable does not. This suggests that the conversion to an automatic interlocker occurred between those dates. Manual override controls for the Elgin automatic interlocker are located in the boxes atop the white trackside post (visible at far right in the Union Depot photo above.)

Below is an excerpt from an article by Lisa Johnson (hat tip Ann Helgeson) from the Bastrop County Times of May 4, 1978 that recounts an interview with Mrs. W. M. Griffin of Elgin who provided her recollections of tower operations. Her family had moved to Elgin in 1908 and she recalled seeing gates at the crossing as a young child.

Mrs. W M Griffin, wife of the telegraph operator Bill Griffin, remembers those early days. "We moved into town when I was a little girl, in 1908, and I remember the big red depot as being brand new. My father was with the cotton oil mill, and like a lot of families, we moved to Elgin because the railroads made it a center of activity and business." Mrs. Griffin's late husband operated the semaphore for the Southern Pacific out of the little telegraph tower which was moved to Avenue F from its original site adjacent to the Union Station. She remembers that before the telegraph came, crossing gates were used to regulate the trains where the KATY and SP lines crossed. There were always three shifts or "tricks" for the telegraph operators so that someone was always looking there to give signals to the switchmen and avoid a collision. Griffin was first trick (7 am to 3 pm), H G Davis whose wife, Sadie Bell still lives in Elgin, was second trick (3-11 pm) and N R Radtke was third trick, the night shift (11 pm - 7 am). Radtke started with the SP in 1930 as a telegraph operator and retired in 1963 as a freight agent, a job that he took in 1957. "When I first came to Elgin we had a switching tower and we worked for both trains. During the War years, there was a great shortage of men who could do the job that had to be done, so we trained young men who hadn't gone to the service as telegraph operators. I guess I must've trained 50 or so during that time." Radtke said that for most of his working years, it was a "...24-hour job, seven days a week. There was not time off, someone always had to be there." When Radtke started, there were no diesels. He remembered the changeover. "It was a gradual transition to diesel about 30 years ago. I remember General Electric, out of Philadelphia, loaned the Katy two diesels, and they wore them slap-dab out running them so much." Asked if he had ever experienced a train wreck in his years with the railroad he indicated there were many collisions for a variety of reasons. Once a freight train coming south and an empty train coming north from Camp Swift collided. Another particularly bad wreck he remembered occurred between some gravel cars that had rolled three miles out of a side track onto the main track. The engineer of the oncoming train and his son were killed. Radtke estimated he has seen 50 or more wrecks.

In 1915, the Katy entered a receivership that lasted until 1923. It emerged from bankruptcy with a slight name change, the Missouri - Kansas - Texas Railroad, hence M-K-T, MKT and MK&T have all been used as acronyms for the Katy. The Katy remained independent into the 1980s, but by then it had been struggling for many years to sustain its existence. In 1988, it was acquired by Union Pacific (UP) and merged into MP which had been acquired by UP as a wholly-owned subsidiary in 1982. The merger of the Katy into MP was one hundred years after MP's lease of the Katy had been terminated by the Texas Supreme Court. The Katy name was retired; all operations were conducted under the MP name.

Right: The Elgin Union Depot is clearly visible in this 1959 image ((c)historicaerials.com), but across from it, the tower does not appear to be present. The image shows a light color equipment cabinet a short distance east of the crossing casting a shadow to the north. This is undoubtedly the housing for the automatic interlocker installed to replace the tower sometime between March, 1957 and July, 1958. It's unclear precisely what is visible immediately beside the southeast corner of the diamond, possibly the tower in a state of being dismantled for relocation.

In August, 1961, SP requested permission from the ICC to abandon the tracks between Hempstead and Brenham. SP knew that the Brazos River bridge would not survive the next flood and that rail traffic on the line was insufficient to justify rebuilding it. The tracks were embargoed the following month due to floodwaters caused by Hurricane Carla and then officially abandoned between Hempstead and Brenham in 1962. The next phase of abandonment was between Brenham and Giddings in 1979. ICC approved the request as there was no traffic moving regularly over the tracks and both endpoints retained rail service on other lines. In 1986, SP sold the tracks between Giddings and Llano to the City of Austin which wanted to preserve the right-of-way for potential commuter rail or light rail. The City leased the line for continued freight operations to RailTex, which established a new Austin & Northwestern to be the operating railroad. In 1996, the Longhorn Railroad took over operations on the line with freight service beginning May 6th. Yet another operating change was made in April, 2000 when the City leased the line to the Austin Area Terminal Railroad. The line has been operated since October 1, 2007 by the Austin & Western Railroad (AWRR), a subsidiary of transportation services company Watco. East of Austin, AWRR serves businesses in Manor, Elgin and Giddings.

SP had maintained a robust presence throughout Texas continuing into the 1990s. Industry-wide consolidations motivated SP to accept a merger with UP in 1996. Within a couple of years, all operations in the UP system were being conducted under the UP name; operationally, MP and SP ceased to exist.

Left: undated photo of Tower 100 and Elgin Union Depot (James E. Hassell collection) Below: Tower 100 was relocated to Avenue F near Booker T. Washington Elementary School, not far from the Katy tracks and within a half mile of the crossing. Unfortunately, it was allowed to fall into complete disrepair and was ultimately razed, probably in the late 1980s. This photo at its Avenue F location appeared in the Bastrop County Times on May 4, 1978. (courtesy Ann Helgeson, Elgin Historical Association and Elgin Union Depot Museum)

Above: two photos of Tower 100 at its Avenue F location (Con Sweet photos, March, 1984)

Above: Tower 100's foundation (Ann Helgeson photo)

Right: R.J. McKay writes: "Well, here's a latter day picture of Elgin from when I worked on the Austin and Northwestern Railroad. I was the Engineer and Lanny Farley was the Conductor, both known as TranSpecs, or Transportation Specialists on the RailTex properties. Tower 100 was replaced with a signal box and on the opposite side of the track are the time release boxes, one for the A&NW and one for the Katy. Old H&TC Freight depot on the left in the background and the Union Depot on the right."

Above Left: This Google Street View image from June 2016 shows an automatic interlocker cabin in the southeast quadrant of the diamond where Tower 100 once stood. The interlocker override controls are on the post across from it in the northeast quadrant. Above Right: The Tower 100 crossing is near the center of Elgin on the southeast corner of downtown. This 2022 Google Earth satellite view shows the former Katy tracks intact generally north / south and the former SP tracks intact generally east / west, with a connecting track in the northeast quadrant. A track chart of Elgin c.1920 produced by SP (hat tip, Stuart Schroeder) shows there was also a connecting track in the southeast quadrant, but there is no evidence of it in the satellite image above. While both rail lines remain active, Federal Railroad Administration grade crossing records show that in 2019, UP was operating an average of only two trains daily on the former Katy tracks through Elgin which had been relegated to secondary status. Grade crossing information from October, 2023 reported an average of two trains per week on the AWRR through Elgin. Although UP / AWRR traffic exchange is feasible at Elgin, the primary interchange is at McNeil.

Left: These photos show a Tower 100 model built by Jim Zwernemann. They were were taken at Smithville in August, 2006 at the Katy House Bed & Breakfast. Credit to Bruce Blalock for arranging the visit. Thanks, Bruce! (Jim King photos)

 
Last Revised: 8/7/2026 - Contact the Texas Interlocking Towers website.