Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM Dave, The lines in SE Washington were built to haul grain to Portland and Tacoma. About the only other traffic that developed was fertilizer (for grain) and coal for WSU steam plant at Pullman. The river killed the grain business within 50 miles and depressed rates beyond that range. The river killed the grain business which killed the branches. That was the direct intended result of US Government policy. I can not imagine why you think BN should have thrown good money down the rat hole trying to compete with the trucks on a short haul on a network that was never oriented toward the river. Look at the map of rail network as it was in 1970 and location of barge loading stations and then tell me the railroads could have competed to the river. Watco has a short haul move to the River. If it is making so much money why did the State of Washington have to buy a bunch of the cars for it? Why is most of their network operating at 10MPH? Why did they threaten to abandon the half of their lines closest to the river? Why did the State of Washington recently have to buy Watco's lines for over $7,000,000? Mac [/quote] Mac, you are correct that some of the Palouse branch lines were built for westward haul, but that would limit it to the Connell-Colfax branch. The UP lines through the area were once part of UP's predecessor main to Spokane until the "Washy" was built in the early 1900's, and access to the Silver Valley mines. The ex-NP line from Spokane to Lewiston was built for general freight as it ran north-south. The ex-GN line from Spokane to Colfax and Moscow was originally an interurban that evolved into a grain hauling branch. You have to go outside the Palouse to find the westward grain hauling alignment of branchlines. The ex-NP Central Washington line which west westward from Cheney and then turned south to Connell is a true grain hauling branch. GN's Mansfield branch and Milwaukee's Marcellus line were true grain haulers. All the lines south of the Snake River can also be declared primarily grain haulers in their original intent, sans UP's Alto line. Since BN's Spokane to Lewiston branch is (was) north-south, it would have fit perfectly as a grain hauling branch down to Lewiston once the barge lines came into play at Lewiston, as the WSDOT study alluded to in it's Eastern Washington Rail Plan. The branch definately would have made more money doing so than what BN eventually did, which was cut the branch off at Moscow. The grain loading barge facilities in Lewiston were in place by the late 1970's, and BN stopped serving Lewiston from the north shortly thereafter, so BN never did try to run such shuttles even though the rails remained in place until the late 1990's. You have to question BN's motives in not trying to utilize this network, and why it took 20 years until CSP in Idaho and Watco in the Walla Walla Valley began such a service. BN's actions also forced BN's eastbound cargos out of Lewiston to run west to Pasco before they began their trip east, adding days to the schedule, not a model of efficiency there. Yes, one should look at the railroad map of the region in the late 1970's and see that the barge loading stations are located right at the southern end of BN's Spokane-Lewiston branch, the P & L. I should also mention that Watco was also running short haul shuttles from the Palouse to Wallula via Hooper over UP haulage rights. I'm not sure if they have continued this, as UP began to have problems with the CP run throughs that somewhat congested this line. As for why the State of Washington had to buy hoppers for use on the Eastern Washington branchlines, it is well known that those lines were having a terrible time trying to get hoppers from UP and BN, and they were going to go bust unless they could get such hoppers elsewhere. My view at the time was that the barge lines should have taken the initiative and bought the hoppers for them, virtually ensuring that they would be used soley in the shorthaul shuttles. By leaving that option to the State, it denied the barge lines the opportunity to really control grain movements in the region, and if those cars were sequestered for haulage down the Gorge, it meant those cars would be less available for use in the shorthaul shuttles. In the end, the barge people end up blowing it as badly as the Class I railroaders in this respect. I also believe the Walla Walla lines are actually owned by the Port of Walla Walla, and were in such bad shape when they took over it made it inevitable that the State would have to come in and bail them out. The short haul shuttles probably saved that line from going under competely. As for the Palouse lines, understand that 70% of the export grain from the area is being hauled by truck down to the barge lines. If BN hadn't taken out the Moscow-Arrow line, the owners of the P & L probably could have cornered the market on this shorthaul shuttle. If so, it would have precluded the necessity of the State purchasing the lines. Since it was the State of Idaho that signed off on the eventual rail removal from this line, the State of Washington would be justified in my view to send the bill to Idaho to recoup at least part of the purchase price.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag