Travel in the 1920's

[JasonW]

 

Hi All,

I have been reading around the internet about the various travel options in the 1920's and I know it was possible to cross Atlantic by boat and there where internal American flights to different states. However I cant find much information on travel between the north and south America, would this be undertaken by sea or air or land? Are there any good resources for finding this kind of information out?? Any help would be appreciated. 

 

[Joerg]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_railway_history offers dates and routes for railway lines.

Road travel will have been sketchy - the Panamericana was started only in the 1950ies in South America. Road networks would be mostly on national levels, and connecting the hinterland to the ports on the sea coasts or major rivers.

Ship travel was well established.

The huge Dornier sea planes that connected Europe to South America took up their service only in the 1930ies. There will have been land based air traffic before that, but I have no information on that.

The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Los_Angeles_(ZR-3) did service Panama in 1929.

[Atgxtg]

Yeah, for long distance, sea is generally the way to go.

In the 20s, even in US and Europe, serious travel was usually by rail or horse. Automobiles existed, but weren't really year round, full weather options yet, and neither were the roads in some places.  

Air travel was pretty much non-existent as a serious means to transportation. The exception being Zeppelins (and I do mean the DELAG company Zeppelins, not just any airship) which did have somewhat regular passenger service, and by the late 20s was flying the Graf Zepplin all over Europe, across the Atlantic, and even around the world. DELAG was really the only company that was able to make passenger airship travel work out over time and in a safe manner. They only lost one passenger airship in decades of service. Unfortunately, it just happened to occur in front of a lot of newsmen and became the first disaster to be caught on film.  

 

[JasonW]

 

Thanks Joerg and Atgxtg for the great information, my current campaign is set in 1926/27 so I guess by that time early zeppelin travel would be an option. I want my players to get to Rio de Janeiro so a zeppelin to Panama would be possible and then a combination of rail and road travel to get to Rio...its gonna be a long and dangerous trip

[Darius West]

On 6/28/2017 at 6:20 PM, JasonW said:

 

Hi All,

I have been reading around the internet about the various travel options in the 1920's and I know it was possible to cross Atlantic by boat and there where internal American flights to different states. However I cant find much information on travel between the north and south America, would this be undertaken by sea or air or land? Are there any good resources for finding this kind of information out?? Any help would be appreciated. 

 

Actually the notion of flying in the USA is exaggerated.  Most CoC is set in 1927, and that is the year that Charles Lindberg became the first solo flier to cross the Atlantic.  There is Chalks International Airline flying boats that flies from Miami to the Biminis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalk's_International_Airlines

People simply didn't fly as a means of transport in the USA, and who could blame them?  Air safety wasn't a "thing" yet, and any landing that didn't decapitate or cripple you for life you were lucky and it was a good one.  The rate of deaths amongst airmail pilots was completely atrocious and recklessly crazy even by the standards of the day.  It was routine for pilots to hit fog, get lost, run out of fuel, try to land on a road or field and slam into a fence or truck and die in nasty ways.   Better perhaps than being subsumed into a gelatinous mythos entity, but not good.  Charles Lindberg was the exception, the man was an amazingly gifted flier. He routinely navigated weather conditions that terrified highly experienced pilots.  Of course Lindberg wasn't the first man to fly the Atlantic; that was Alcock and Brown in 1919, but nobody had come close since and A&B crash landed, whereas Lindberg buzzed the Eiffel Tower and made it look easy.

And for all that, while a plane was faster than a car it was probably only about as reliable, and cars broke down all the time.  The safest option BY FAR for interstate travel in the 1920s was the rail service, which was extensive, reliable, could tailor tickets to your budget, and was much faster than either a car or a plane.  So if the state border is quite close you drive, and if not, you catch the train.  It wasn't unthinkable to have your car packed onto the train as freight either, just a bit expensive.  It might be worth pointing out that many major US cities are situated on state borders so that people could take advantage of different rates of taxation on various goods.

Between 1927 and 1930 a series of smaller airlines began amalgamating together, creating larger airlines which would eventually develop into the industry leaders of Eastern Airlines, American Airlines, United Airlines, TWA and Pan American Airways.  It was Pan Am who became the industry leader and virtual monopoly owner of internal US air travel during this period, but such travel was the province of the rich and foolhardy, and crashes yep crashes aplenty.  Trans-Atlantic flights first start in 1937, just in time for WW2 to become a nuisance.  The carriers include Pan Am, British Imperial Airways, BOAC, and a few others.  Things start speeding up again after WW2.  The more realistic option is to take a ship; they're safe, and an Atlantic crossing was normally completed in  just under 2 days in comparative luxury compared to air travel where you had to crap in a bucket and hope it didn't slosh onto you during turbulence, not to mention the smell of the engines and the terrible cabin air pressure issues, oh, and they hadn't figured out seat belts yet.  I promise that this is no exaggeration.  It was just awful.

If you are looking for info on airlines, you will find that Britian, France and Germany in 1927 had airlines that were reasonably extensive, but it was still an industry in its infancy. The USA was a long way behind them at this point, but one of the catalyzing effects of Charles Lindberg was to reawaken the American passion for aviation.  The USA doesn't overtake the other nations in aviation in any meaningful way until well into WW2, but in the post war era the USA maintains and extends its domination of commercial aviation.

Edited June 30, 2017 by Darius West

[Atgxtg]

On 6/28/2017 at 10:45 AM, JasonW said:

 

Thanks Joerg and Atgxtg for the great information, my current campaign is set in 1926/27 so I guess by that time early zeppelin travel would be an option. I want my players to get to Rio de Janeiro so a zeppelin to Panama would be possible and then a combination of rail and road travel to get to Rio...its gonna be a long and dangerous trip

Pity it wasn't set in 1930. Then they could take the Graf Zepplin right to Rio.

Frankly, if I were the PCs I'd go by ship rather than overland from Panama. It would be a lot faster and safer. Malaria alone would give me reason not to go by land without a very good reason.

[g33k]

Given the existence of reality-warping entities from beyond the far reaches...

Does it REALLY matter if a given commercial-carrier was active on THIS route vs THAT one, or with Zeppelin vs sea-plane tech?  Do you have anyone who is that focussed on historical purity, that it would decrease their fun if era-appropriate tech was moved to a different route, or hit market a few years earlier (or lasted a few years later) than the history-books record?

Rule of cool, man:  it's era-appropriate, and it's cool, so roll with it!

YMMV, of course!

[JasonW]

 

Thanks again Darius West for the great information, so it turns out air travel wasn't that common/safe at all in my current time period 1926/27. I know what you mean though g33k I don't want my game to be completely historically factual in every way but I just wanted to know what was feasible and not too outlandish given the time period.

I might still consider air travel for a small portion of the players trip for example the players need to cross parts of brazil, which definitely would not have any sort of road system so a plane would simple be the fastest way to do this. However maybe have the players travel by train to actually get from Boston into Brazil.

In the end of the day I just my game to be fun but not too bogged down in detail. 

 

[BigJackBrass]

14 hours ago, Darius West said:

And for all that, while a plane was faster than a car it was probably only about as reliable, and cars broke down all the time.

The early twentieth century American term flivver was used interchangeably to refer to old and unsafe cars and aeroplanes.

[Darius West]

10 hours ago, g33k said:

Given the existence of reality-warping entities from beyond the far reaches...

Does it REALLY matter if a given commercial-carrier was active on THIS route vs THAT one, or with Zeppelin vs sea-plane tech?  Do you have anyone who is that focussed on historical purity, that it would decrease their fun if era-appropriate tech was moved to a different route, or hit market a few years earlier (or lasted a few years later) than the history-books record?

Rule of cool, man:  it's era-appropriate, and it's cool, so roll with it!

YMMV, of course!

Yes it matters.  How many people have access to gate spells and other mythos related powers who are not in league with the mythos and want the investigators dead? "Not many at all" or "none" should be the answer. Besides, one of the great pleasures of playing C'thulhu is to evoke the era, warts and all, for players to interact with.  The wonderful thing about the internet is that it only takes a bit of research to get everything you need, so why compromise with quality when for 2 minutes more work you can be historically accurate?

[Darius West]

16 minutes ago, BigJackBrass said:

The early twentieth century American term flivver was used interchangeably to refer to old and unsafe cars and aeroplanes.

Good to know.  I knew that Model Ts were the original flivvers, but the fact that planes were called flivvers too is news to me.  My present favorite descriptive term for such vehicles is "made entirely out of tetanus".

[BigJackBrass]

1 hour ago, Darius West said:

Good to know.  I knew that Model Ts were the original flivvers, but the fact that planes were called flivvers too is news to me. 

It's something I discovered when learning the song "Fascinating Rhythm," which features the word. Had to look up what it meant: apparently it originated with the Model T but took on a wider definition following Ford's early unsuccessful ventures into aircraft design.

 

Edit:

http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-space/article/2001-12/looking-back-henry-fords-flivver

 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Flivver

Edited June 30, 2017 by BigJackBrass

[Atgxtg]

5 hours ago, JasonW said:

 

Thanks again Darius West for the great information, so it turns out air travel wasn't that common/safe at all in my current time period 1926/27. I know what you mean though g33k I don't want my game to be completely historically factual in every way but I just wanted to know what was feasible and not too outlandish given the time period.

Well the Graf Zeppelin did do a flight from German to New Jersey in 1928, and did set up a triangular route to Rio in 1930. So if you wanted to push it ahead a few years it wouldn't be all that outlandish. I've got BRP game stats for the LZ127 Graf Zepplin (I've got BRP stats for every Zeppelin). If you need them let me know. I can adjust them for CoC6 or CoC7, depending on what you are running.

[g33k]

12 hours ago, Darius West said:

How many people have access to gate spells and other mythos related powers who are not in league with the mythos and want the investigators dead? "Not many at all" or "none" should be the answer.

No argument from me!

Hrrmmm.  No... I take that back...

That's how I would want to play; but if another group wants to play with Mythos-Gates replacing railways between major cities, and likes the resulting game... that's fine with me, too!   So, not "...should be the answer" but "...would be my answer, too; but others may prefer a different answer."

 

12 hours ago, Darius West said:

... one of the great pleasures of playing C'thulhu is to evoke the era, warts and all, for players to interact with.  The wonderful thing about the internet is that it only takes a bit of research to get everything you need, so why compromise with quality when for 2 minutes more work you can be historically accurate?

I like historical accuracy myself... Ars Magica is one of my all-time-favorite RPGs.  But often enough, minor (and occasionally a not-so-minor) liberties can be taken, and it results in a better story.

You can "evoke the era" without adhering to every historically-available detail.

A Zeppelin ride from Los Angeles to Sao Paulo?  Well, it's reasonable (given prevailing tech and commerce) that it MIGHT have been available.  If the GM has a reason to WANT there to be such a route available (or for there NOT to be one, when history says there was!) ... I say "to hell with historicity."

 

[Atgxtg]

On 6/30/2017 at 5:35 AM, Darius West said:

The wonderful thing about the internet is that it only takes a bit of research to get everything you need, so why compromise with quality when for 2 minutes more work you can be historically accurate?

Historical inaccuracies and anachronisms do not necessarily mean a compromise in quality. Quite a few stories in print and film take the odd liberty with history here and there. I all depends on what you do, how you do it, and why. For example, most Westerns use firearms firing metallic cartridges well before such weapons came out. Now I'm not saying a GM should take such liberties, but I also not saying that he shouldn't either. 

[Darius West]

On 7/1/2017 at 10:09 PM, Atgxtg said:

Historical inaccuracies and anachronisms do not necessarily mean a compromise in quality. Quite a few stories in print and film take the odd liberty with history here and there. I all depends on what you do, how you do it, and why. For example, most Westerns use firearms firing metallic cartridges well before such weapons came out. Now I'm not saying a GM should take such liberties, but I also not saying that he shouldn't either. 

So you are saying that the last Lone Wolf and Cub movie didn't suck even though it had skiing ninjas in pre-Meiji Japan?  I have to disagree.  I can generally ignore GMs who slip up on their history by mistake if they correct it, and if the GM is doing anachronisms for comedic value I am fine with it, but anachronisms are just sloppy.  As for most westerns using metal cartridges, well, considering that most westerns are set in the period between 1868 (War of Southern Aggression)-1912(Arizona and New Mexico become states), you will find that the classic weapons of the period will all have metal cartridges and not be anachronistic.  The navy colt .45 revolver was released in 1951 and was exclusively metal cartridges, the colt peacemaker was about 1873 ditto, the sharps rifle transitioned to metal cartridges exclusively by 1874 but earlier powder models still existed, and the Winchester Repeater Rifle's first model came out in 1866 and always had metal cartridges.  As these are the iconic firearms of the period and many examples of them still exist, even Hollywood doesn't get that wrong.  This leaves me a bit puzzled as to what you are referring to with that "anachronism".  Do you have more specific examples?

[Darius West]

On 7/1/2017 at 8:36 AM, g33k said:

No argument from me!

Hrrmmm.  No... I take that back...

That's how I would want to play; but if another group wants to play with Mythos-Gates replacing railways between major cities, and likes the resulting game... that's fine with me, too!   So, not "...should be the answer" but "...would be my answer, too; but others may prefer a different answer."

 

If the game itself is about the anachronisms as a plot device that is entirely different.  For example I once had Nyarlathotep Cultists put on a showing of a stolen copy of Star Wars with full colour and surround sound and purport that it was history from the future, and proof that the British Empire were ultimately going to retake the USA (think about the actors and their accents).  Being the 1920s they all lost 1d6 SAN for the creepy Cantina Aliens, and it created a political rift between the American and British Characters because my players loved it and ran with it.  

On 7/1/2017 at 8:36 AM, g33k said:

I like historical accuracy myself... Ars Magica is one of my all-time-favorite RPGs.  But often enough, minor (and occasionally a not-so-minor) liberties can be taken, and it results in a better story.

1

 I also love Ars Magica and I agree with your take on things.  My philosophy is that the history is as written only up to the point that play begins, then it is open slather.  If players are present at historic events and upset history then it changes, if not, they hear about it as current affairs at church (which is where most official royal business was announced in the Christian world).  I don't allow the pre-introduction of the longbow for example, or the hand saw until they are known to have been invented.

On 7/1/2017 at 8:36 AM, g33k said:

A Zeppelin ride from Los Angeles to Sao Paulo?  Well, it's reasonable (given prevailing tech and commerce) that it MIGHT have been available.  If the GM has a reason to WANT there to be such a route available (or for there NOT to be one, when history says there was!) ... I say "to hell with historicity."

 

Without doubt if the technology exists I have no problem with players working to acquire it and subsequently using it.  If players time travel and become aware of the rise and consequences of Nazism then proceed to capture and crash the Hindenburg onto the Beer Hall Putsch for example so be it. On the other hand if they want to build a  point contact transistor in 1927, they had better have a 21Int, 99 Electronics, and a bloody good excuse for how they came up with the idea while in the context of being engaged in fighting the mythos.

If you want a surprise however, most people are unaware of how early linoleum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linoleum, refrigeration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refrigeration, and air conditioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_conditioning were introduced.

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, Darius West said:

So you are saying that the last Lone Wolf and Cub movie didn't suck even though it had skiing ninjas in pre-Meiji Japan?

No, I'm not saying that it didn't suck, anymore than you are saying that it would have been the next Citizen Kane without those ninja. 

 

1 hour ago, Darius West said:

 As for most westerns using metal cartridges, well, considering that most westerns are set in the period between 1868 (War of Southern Aggression)-1912(Arizona and New Mexico become states), you will find that the classic weapons of the period will all have metal cartridges and not be anachronistic.

Not all the classic weapons. Cap & Ball weapons didn't just vanish after the civil war, not did everyone go out and get a metallic conversion. Yet you are more likely to see an anachronistic automobile in the background of a western than you are to see a period accurate cap & ball firearm. 

 

1 hour ago, Darius West said:

 The navy colt .45 revolver was released in 1951 and was exclusively metal cartridges,

No, it was a cap & ball revolver than later had a cartridge conversion. 

1 hour ago, Darius West said:

 

the colt peacemaker was about 1873 ditto, the sharps rifle transitioned to metal cartridges exclusively by 1874 but earlier powder models still existed, and the Winchester Repeater Rifle's first model came out in 1866 and always had metal cartridges.  As these are the iconic firearms of the period and many examples of them still exist, even Hollywood doesn't get that wrong.  This leaves me a bit puzzled as to what you are referring to with that "anachronism".  Do you have more specific examples?

Look at most Westerns that are set during or before the Civil War. You will typically see metallic cartridges where they don't belong or at least weren't all that common. One specfic example off the top of my head in in the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. The character of Angel Eyes uses a cap & Ball revolver, yet wears metallic cartridges on his gun belt. Likewise Tuco's gun switches from a cartridge conversion revolver to a cap & ball version of the same weapon. Now, admittedly, Spaghetti Westerns aren't partially known for historical accruacy, but then neither are most Hollywood and TV westerns either. 

Hollywood does get that wrong. It often uses "iconic firearms of the period"  before such firearms actually existed. 

[Darius West]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

No, I'm not saying that it didn't suck, anymore than you are saying that it would have been the next Citizen Kane without those ninja. 

2

LOL, actually I don't think Citizen Kane is such a great movie, and it wasn't the ninjas I had a problem with, it was purely the skis.

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Hollywood does get that wrong. It often uses "iconic firearms of the period"  before such firearms actually existed. 

 

Okay, on close inspection of the firearms I stand corrected.  Well spotted.

[Atgxtg]

Ah, but the thing is, getting the firearms wrong, in an anachronistic way,  provided that it's not too blatant, doesn't necessarily ruin a film. Most good Westerns being examples.

 

To me anachronisms, are like science errors in games, usually they fall under the players' radar. It's only when something is blatantly off, or one or more players have an uncommon degree of knowledge, when thing can get so bad as to actually negatively impact or even completely ruin the game. I've seen a few games were the PCs went off on a tangent because the GM did something that "pinged" the players radar and the players thought that had to be an in universe reason for it. 

Edited July 5, 2017 by Atgxtg

[EricW]

Seems to me that a con artist or even a cultist might offer eager players a fast means of transport. Cash up front. Step into this box, the one with the lock on  the door...

 

Edited July 7, 2017 by EricW

[Joerg]

Just saw this on G+:

https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch3en/conc3en/earlyairnetworks.html

 

 

Edited August 5, 2017 by Joerg

[Atgxtg]

On 7/7/2017 at 4:18 AM, EricW said:

Seems to me that a con artist or even a cultist might offer eager players a fast means of transport. Cash up front. Step into this box, the one with the lock on  the door...

 

Byakhee Express

[JasonW]

 

Joerg, that was a great find. Also just like to see there has been some great discussion on this thread probably enough to do a write up and keep my scenario realistic. All i have to do is come up with the rest of the story now

Edited August 7, 2017 by JasonW

[Toadmaster]

If you look at the airliners (and I use that term loosely) of the late 1920s to mid 1930s I think it illustrates the state of the industry quite well. The Fokker F10 and Ford Tri-Motor could carry 10-12 passengers, most carried fewer, and there were few amenities for the passengers beyond a place to sit. Passenger service was often a secondary function to air mail service. The aircraft typically had a range of 450-600 miles at a cruising speed of about 100mph.

In the US during the late 1920s, the major airliners would have been the Boeing Model 40B (2 passengers), Fokker F.VII/3m (6-8 passengers), Fokker F10 (12 passengers), and Ford Tri-motor (initially 8 passengers, later versions could as many as 17 passengers).

Wikipedia has a description of an early transcontinental "flight" circa 1928-29.

Quote

While advertised as a transcontinental service, the airline had to rely on rail connections with a deluxe Pullman train that would be based in New York being the first part of the journey. Passengers then met a Trimotor in Port Columbus, Ohio, that would begin a hop across the continent ending at Waynoka, Oklahoma, where another train would take the passengers to Clovis, New Mexico, where the final journey would begin, again on a Trimotor, to end up at the Grand Central Air Terminal in Glendale, a few miles northeast of Los Angeles.

The early 1930s increased the speed and distance possible with aircraft like the Heinkel He70 (4 passenges @ 183mph) and the Boeing 247 (8 passengers @ 188 mph), but it wasn't until Douglas introduced the DC3 in 1936 that you really start to see something resembling modern air travel. Large flying boats like the Short Empire, and Martin M-130 also appeared about this time making long distance over-seas air travel possible (I was going to say practical, but that might be overstating things).

 

For adventurers however, I don't think it would be anachronistic to have them book a flight on a mail plane. Many of the first airline routes followed airmail routes and the popular mailplanes did have room for a handful of passengers (or half a handful in the case of the Model 40), so presumably one could fly with the mail.

 

The Dornier X did successfully cross the Atlantic with 100+ passengers in 1930. Ultimately a failure as far as providing regular service, but getting the PCs on that initial Trans-atlantic flight of 1930 could be a neat feature of an adventure, or more likely be the bulk of an adventure on its own, as the complete trip from Germany to the US took almost 9 months with stops in several European countries, the UK, Africa, South America and Puerto Rico before finally arriving in New York.    

Edited August 13, 2017 by Toadmaster