Saying Goodbye to the Last Train

Harry T. Cook

By Harry T. Cook
2/20/15
 

 

It turns out that I did not fully grasp a lesson in reality on that Sunday night in September 1957 when I saw the last Resort Special pull away from the train station in the little northern Michigan village in which I had grown up. It was Labor Day, just a week before I would enter college.

 

I had lived in that village before we moved in 1954 to a larger nearby town, but my longings remained behind. That evening, I had come back to the place at which I had earned my first dollar -- in four separate tips, respectively: once for toting luggage, thrice delivering Western Union telegrams.

 

As a lad, I was fascinated with the railroad and learned a great deal about the business from a kindly station agent who, in effect, was my surrogate grandfather -- I having been born some time after my own grandparents had died. The romance of the rails is with me still, but it was the disappearance of the last car of the last summer special around the curve at the south end of town that stands out to this day.

 

It would be 25 years on before the track was ripped up and the right-of-way let go to seed. The actual last train hauled rails and crossties as they were systematically taken up all the way from Charlevoix -- some 38 miles north -- south to Manistee for 81 more miles. The line of steel that for almost 100 years had connected tiny Nowherevilles to Everywheres coast to coast was severed, and gone were the sleek trains of my youth.

 

The Resort Special was inaugurated as a summertime train by what was then known as the Pere Marquette Railway in 1904, running in two sections: one from Chicago, the other from Detroit. Both ran overnight through Grand Rapids north to Charlevoix and Petoskey, securing the future of both as resort destinations, which they are still to this day.

 

The railroad suspended the Special from 1943 to 1945 at the bidding of the U.S. government, which needed every available Pullman car for use in troop transport during the Second World War. Its return in summer 1946 was celebrated by northwoods lovers in what we then called "down below" -- including the cities of Cincinnati, Louisville and St. Louis from which Pullmans departed every evening but Sunday to connect with the Special going north from Detroit or Chicago.

 

Those early summer mornings as the highly polished steam locomotive heralded its imminent arrival at the depot with detraining passengers eager to get to their lodgings, or the hazy evenings as the Special headed back whence it came with departing vacationers, made me think that I was at the center of something important that would go on forever.

 

I reveled in every suitcase I carried for an appreciative passenger, every trunk I helped the station agent load onto the baggage car, every "All aboard" called out by the conductor, every wave of the flagman's lantern and every throaty exhaust of the locomotive as it pulled the succession of dark green cars out of town toward the Big Cities. It was all right, because another run of the Special would be coming north early the next morning -- with the exception of Mondays.

 

I once had the opportunity to make that journey overnight to Detroit in a lower berth of one of those cars. I can still smell the aroma of Pullman-laundered muslin sheets and the mesmerizing odor of coal smoke and steam. That trip was made in 1947 when I was eight years old.

 

The last time it could have been made on that train was 10 years later when I was 18. In vain, I wished at that moment on that evening that I could be on board. But all I could do was to stand, a solitary figure, watching the red markers on the last Pullman of the last Special disappear into railroad history. That's when I began to understand what it meant to say goodbye.

 

The railroad had made clear that the Special, after 50 years of service, would no longer run. The automobile, the early freeways and more dependable air travel had made the train obsolete -- or so the newspaper stories said.

 

Six years later, all passenger service on that part of the railroad ceased to exist. Twenty years hence, the track itself was gone. All that remains today is the built-up right-of-way covered with weeds and growing trees. I do not like to look at it.

 

Psychologically, I became an adult on that September night 57 years ago. I wasn't at the site when the last train ever lumbered down the right-of-way that, in its last years, had been left to decay. Even if I had known on what day that would occur, I would not have been there.

 

Although I have learned much in the past 57 years about the need to say goodbye -- not the optimistic au revoir or auf wiedersehen -- they remain the most difficult words to speak in any terminal way. The learning continues but, rather than getting easier, gets harder.


 


Copyright 2015 Harry T. Cook. All rights reserved. This article may not be used or reproduced without proper credit.
 


Readers Write
Re essay of 2/13/15 Secular Is As Secular Does
 

Mark Harminson, Ames, Iowa:

I see in Brooks' essay a basic error of thought and understanding. He concludes that without religion, individuals must work out their own ethics, each for themselves. From what I can see, this is akin to saying that if you've never heard of Isaac Newton then you must work out your own theory of gravity or risk floating off the planet. The basic law of ethics (the Golden Rule) seems to be hardwired into us, regardless of what, if any, god we apprehend. If ethics are largely the same for Catholics, Hindus, Jews, bushmen, and atheists, then those ethics arise from a source that is common to all. Further, with each passing year we read about new discoveries of non-human animals behaving in ethical ways; demonstrating complex systems of reciprocity and altruism in creatures ranging from tiny fish to the great apes. If there is a god and it has given ethics to it's creatures, then it has done so without regard to their professed religion, and it would appear in rough proportion to how import working together is to their survival.  Religion is used to articulate ethics and to provide a creation story for them. Most of us, independent of our religion or lack thereof, are born with and develop ethics that are largely consistent around the globe. It is not any harder for a secular person to divine what is right and wrong than it is for a religious person. I do agree with Brooks' other main point though, that secular people still need to have institutions that fulfill the important functions that religious institutions have fulfilled for much of our civilized existence: moral teamwork, charity, community, education, ritual, and care of our emotions. In this I consider myself a religious atheist: I have not reason or feeling to believe in the supernatural, but I belong to a church (a UU) that provides for me and my family those vital elements that are the true and right function of religion.  

 

Velma Atkinson, Juneau, Alaska:

If I read you right, and despite the feminine pronoun, you are that secular person. But why wouldn't you believe in God? Not enough evidence? Not the stars, the sun, the moon? Not Earth, itself? I don't understand you people. I pity you.

 

Cynthia Chase, Laurel, Maryland:

To be concerned about one's "sanctification" is to be like a kid on a car trip, always asking "Are we there yet?" You'd probably need a mental checklist, and this would tip the balance more toward self-centeredness and away from self-transcendence, I would think.

 

John Bennison, Walnut Creek, California:  

David Brooks is a smart guy who seems to quickly dumb things down whenever he periodically wades into the shallowest waters of what he likes to distinguish as "religious" matters. I take it to indicate his own personal longing for whatever may be unknown and beyond rational experience; albeit a rather stunted search by his own self-limiting proposition, where he draws hard and fast lines between belief and disbelief, instead of unbelief. In my younger days of formal education, I was introduced to Martin Buber's classic about "hallowing days" and the dance he did in an effort to draw the thinnest of lines between what one would consider secular or sacred. Henceforth, blurring any such distinction has proven helpful in avoiding the tempting need to pitch my tent in either camp; and instead remain open to wherever the open road may lead.

Raymond Cole, Normal, Illinois:  

You carry a torch for rationality and a sword against belief. Why? If belief helps people get through a day, a week, a life, what's the matter with it. "Let not the hope of the poor be taken away."

 

Josephine Kelsey, Ann Arbor, Michigan:

Right on target. Well done.

Sally Lehman, Winnipeg, Manitoba:  

Thank you for the portrait of a secular person. You painted me. I don't observe the rituals of my inherited religion, but I believe its ethical program is a gift to humanity.

 

Tracey Martin, Phoenix, Arizona:  

"Secular" means to me this physical world and every physical thing in it. What we can test, measure and use. The anti-secularists, i e, the religionists, threaten to take it from us. By their belief in a deity they can neither test or measure, only use - nefariously. (Sanctification. Made sacred? Beyond testing or measuring. Or questioning?!)

Philip Masters, Cambridge, Massachusetts:  

Your essay reminded me of the humanist chaplain at Harvard and his book "Good Without God." I think you guys are on the right track.

 

Harriett Cole, Madison, Wisconsin:

I have sent a copy of your essay to our impossible governor who is bent on the evangelization of our state government. He's the son of a Baptist minister and seems to have imbibed heavily into orthodoxy. He knows what he believes, no matter what the facts.

 

Marshall Grad, Sterling Heights, Michigan:  

Recently, I had heard on TV someone talking about Voltaire and tolerance. I only caught the last part of the discussion. So out of curiosity, I had my local library order the book for me. I have since started reading it and so far have found it fascinating. Although I am far from finished, since there is a lot to digest, at this point I would recommend that everyone read it. The book is called Treatise on Tolerance. I'm also planning on rereading Candide.

 

Bev Shapiro, Shelby Township, Michigan:
I was so disheartened, and mad, at David Brooks for his article riddled with absolutist language; acting like he knew what he was talking about and putting words in my mouth, as an atheist. I don't know what his next pontificating statement will be, or about what subject. How can I now trust anything he writes? 
 

What do you think?
I'd like to hear from you. E-mail your comments to me at revharrytcook@aol.com.