I have a few questions:
First of all, I have heard two conflicting theories about their pacific extention: The first, says that if the Pacific extention was in fact a profitable investment, that the Milwaukee Road's management was pathetic at the time, and that had the CMStP&P been managed correctly, they could have continued as a profitable transcon, and that abandonment occured mainly because the management at the time was 'not interested in runnigna railroad'
The Second says that building to Puget SOund was a mistake in the first place, and that they never should have done such a bold move and that it was only a matter of time.\
Are either of these theories more correct than the other? Assuming a merger hadn't occured, could the CMStP&P still exist as a transcontinental railroad today?
The Beaverton, Fanno Creek & Bull Mountain Railroad
"Ruby Line Service"
You are going to hear conflicting stories. Here are some things to consider:
The heavy debt load by all of this expansion was a financial burden for years on the company. And the 5 mountain crossings(compared to the 2 on the Great Northern) meant extra operating costs. The best Seattle line is the ex-GN via Cascade Tunnel, and the best line to Portland is a draw between the UP and ex-NP/Ex-SP&S line. Even he ex-NP line in Montana has two rather stiff crossing compared to the easy ex-GN crossing via Marias Pass.
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
KBCpresident I have a few questions: First of all, I have heard two conflicting theories about their pacific extention: The first, says that if the Pacific extention was in fact a profitable investment, that the Milwaukee Road's management was pathetic at the time, and that had the CMStP&P been managed correctly, they could have continued as a profitable transcon, and that abandonment occured mainly because the management at the time was 'not interested in runnigna railroad' The Second says that building to Puget SOund was a mistake in the first place, and that they never should have done such a bold move and that it was only a matter of time.\ Are either of these theories more correct than the other? Assuming a merger hadn't occured, could the CMStP&P still exist as a transcontinental railroad today?
Boy, did we have some fights over this one back in "Old Days". There was what I came to call "The Milwaukee Road Cult" that maintained the railroad was done in by conspiracy and stupidity.
I never bought into that. To be financially successful a railroad main line needs volume. The Pacific Coast Extension of the MILW never had that volume. The line ran through sparsely populated country for hundreds of miles. This country produced and consumed little and generated not much in terms of business for the railroad.
At the few locations that did produce any traffic the Milwaukee was the fourth railroad. An example being Butte, MT with its copper mines. The MILW had to go up against the Great Northern, Northern Pacific, and Union Pacific for business at Butte.
At the western end point, Seattle/Tacoma, the MILW was again the fourth railroad in. Seattle/Tacoma were not major ports until the container ship era. The business to support a long rail line, such as the Pacific Coast Extension of the Milwaukee Road just wasn't there.
The powers that were obviously thought the traffic would develop when they built the PCE. But they were proven wrong. "You pay your money and you take your chances."
The Milwaukee's management decided to discontinue electrification in the early 70's. The idea was that selling the wire would pay for the diesels to replace the electrics. Unfortunately, the 1973 oil crisis had raised the price of diesel, and the recession's drop in copper prices meant the diesels weren't paid for. (IIRC, the amount of money spent on buying diesels could have closed the electrification gap, but I could be wrong).
In actuality, the Pacific Extension failed because the traffic base was not there. The line never passed thru any cities that were not already well served by rail, and the others were really small towns that never had any industry at all. Once the extension got into S. Dakota, it went thru robust business places like Aberdean, Mobridge, and Marmarth. The first city in Montana was Miles City, dominated by the NP. Then it was Roundup, Harlowton, Ringling, Three Forks, and finally Butte, where the GN, NP, UP, and BAP were entrenched. In Missoula, the MILW bypassed every lumber mill in town, but did manage to pick up the pulp mill in Frenchtown. Zip in all of Idaho. I do not recollect much MILW presence in either Spokane or Seattle, and my thinking is that the MILW terminated in Tacoma rather than Seattle, but I may be wrong on that.
I was in Missoula during the late 60's and they ran only 2 thru freights in either direction. I also remember one old guy saying that you never want to ride a MILW freight -- too many wrecks. I also remember that in the 70's one railroad had to hire a VP of Wrecks. I suspect that it was the MILW.
How 'bout theory #3? It seemed like a good idea at the time, but cost & potential traffic estimates were way off. Combining that with unforeseen changes in transportation needs and patterns doomed the PCE from the start. Milwaukee Road directors dug themselves into a very deep hole from the get-go, then spent the rest of Milwaukee Road's existence trying to dig itself out- and failed.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
GN Fan,
The MILW did make it to Seattle via trackage rights over the Pacific Coast. Passenger trains used UP Union Station and they had a freight yard between the Sears building and the NP Stacy Street Yard. Stacy Street is now SIG (Seattle Intermodal Gateway), the steamship container yard. BN bought the MILW yard and incorporated it into SIG long ago.
Seattle also had a rail car barge slip, at Pier 27 IIRC. They floated cars to Shelton, Port Gamble, Port Townsend, and Bellingham at least, pre BN merger. My recollection is that this was their only such facility on Puget Sound, but my Tacoma geography is not as good as my Seattle.
FWIW I am in the camp of they never should have built the Pacific Coast Extension. PCE cost about $240 million to build and turned a prosperous granger line into a bankrupt transcontinental by 1925.
Max Lowenthal in 'The Nation Pays" says that the market value of the company declined by $455 Million between 1905 and 1925. Between 1909 and 1916 bonded debt trippled, while no new stock was issued. The extension was built entirely on credit and the line never generated enough traffic to support it.
After the second bankruptcy, some of the unions, and union men, on the west end claimed that the PCE was profitable and attempted to buy it out of bankruptcy. They could not find any entity to finance them. Virtually all of the main line west of Miles City MT? was scrapped. The state of SD bought the line in SD, probably to Miles City, and had the BN operate it to haul grain. I think the BN finally bought it from the state.
Mac
Any rail line without a traffic base to support it, is bound to fail. Basic Economics.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Since the PCE was the last line built they had access to state of the art building equipment. Was their ROW superior to others that were built essentially with pick and shovel?
State of the art building equipment isn't going a build a route with better grades if all of the routes with better grades are already occupied, even if those routes were built with pick and shovel.
ccltrains Since the PCE was the last line built they had access to state of the art building equipment. Was their ROW superior to others that were built essentially with pick and shovel?
Compare the profiles of MILW, UP, NP, and GN. GN had by far the best profile and thus the lowest operating cost. NP was there first and all rail dependent business located in MT, ID, and WA from 1883 to 1909 located on the NP. Jim Hill deliberately stayed away from the NP so he could develop a separate territory. GN came second in 1893, so they had a 16 year jump on MILW.
The MILW was located right along side the NP for hundreds of miles across Montana and generally parallel all the way from Minnesota.
The decision to build the MILW was made in 1905. The Elkins Act regulating rates was passed in 1903. The decision to build the Panama Canal came in 1906 IIRC. I would argue that had the MILW management been paying attention, they should have would have cancelled the project in 1906, when another Act to regulate rates was passed.
The MILW main was completed in 1909. The last of the "Progressive Era" rate regulatory acts was passed in 1910, which had the practical effect of freezing nominal rates in a period of inflation, something then new to the American Economy. The entire industry was capital starved by 1917. The PCE never developed enough traffic to come close to supporting the debt incurred to build it. The MILW went bankrupt in 1925, a bankruptcy that lasted for an unusually long 20 years.
There is a lot to be said for being there "the firstest (NP) with the mostest (GN)".
NorthWest The Milwaukee's management decided to discontinue electrification in the early 70's. The idea was that selling the wire would pay for the diesels to replace the electrics. Unfortunately, the 1973 oil crisis had raised the price of diesel, and the recession's drop in copper prices meant the diesels weren't paid for. (IIRC, the amount of money spent on buying diesels could have closed the electrification gap, but I could be wrong).
Selling the copper wire in no way would 'pay' for new diesels(even at 1974 prices). In fact, the Milwaukee Road had to leave the overhead up and ;energized' to power the block signal system as there were no power line to recharge the signal system batteries.....
GN_Fan Once the extension got into S. Dakota, it went thru robust business places like Aberdean, Mobridge, and Marmarth.
But now the route would be a great one for CHI - west coast IMs. No intermediate traffic to worry about and if electrification had been filled in ? with the multi voltage capable loco motors available today a slow conversion to a 25 Kv system could be in progress today ?
The same has been said about the mostly abandoned Erie main line between Chicago and New Jersey, especially relating to clearances that would have allowed double stacks from the outset.
C. M. & St. P to Seattle extension. C. R. I. & P. Sioux Falls to Seattle extension. C. B. & Q. Alliance to Seattle extension. Etc. Given the traffic base and routes left to take, would it have made much difference in the end?
Victrola1 C. M. & St. P to Seattle extension. C. R. I. & P. Sioux Falls to Seattle extension. C. B. & Q. Alliance to Seattle extension. Etc. Given the traffic base and routes left to take, would it have made much difference in the end?
So if rail banking had been in force then ?
blue streak 1 So if rail banking had been in force then ?
Guys, the remains of the PCE still exist west of Miles City, Montana, and it is largely a trail. The route is mostly intact.
Jim, thanks for clearing up the end of electrification.
PNWRMNM ccltrains Since the PCE was the last line built they had access to state of the art building equipment. Was their ROW superior to others that were built essentially with pick and shovel? Compare the profiles of MILW, UP, NP, and GN. GN had by far the best profile and thus the lowest operating cost. NP was there first and all rail dependent business located in MT, ID, and WA from 1883 to 1909 located on the NP. Jim Hill deliberately stayed away from the NP so he could develop a separate territory. GN came second in 1893, so they had a 16 year jump on MILW. The MILW was located right along side the NP for hundreds of miles across Montana and generally parallel all the way from Minnesota. The decision to build the MILW was made in 1905. The Elkins Act regulating rates was passed in 1903. The decision to build the Panama Canal came in 1906 IIRC. I would argue that had the MILW management been paying attention, they should have would have cancelled the project in 1906, when another Act to regulate rates was passed. The MILW main was completed in 1909. The last of the "Progressive Era" rate regulatory acts was passed in 1910, which had the practical effect of freezing nominal rates in a period of inflation, something then new to the American Economy. The entire industry was capital starved by 1917. The PCE never developed enough traffic to come close to supporting the debt incurred to build it. The MILW went bankrupt in 1925, a bankruptcy that lasted for an unusually long 20 years. There is a lot to be said for being there "the firstest (NP) with the mostest (GN)". Mac
CM&StP goes into bankruptcy in 1925. Emerges as the CMStP&P in 1928. Again goes into bankruptcy in 1935, emerging in 1945. Maybe not in the best of financial shape in the mean time, but not a 20 year continuous bankruptcy.
Jeff
cab we suspect that this route would have been a very good alternate for BNSF.?
less elevation, better grades, fewer snow days, less total snow, fewer potential slow sections.
Certainly the amount of traffic to PNW today was never anticipated during previous bankruptcies.
Streak,
Compare the profiles. MILW vs GN is NOT a superior route in terms of elevation or grades. It just aint so.
Here's a site with quite a bit of information within it.
http://milwaukeeroadarchives.com/IndexPage.html
The claim made earlier in this thread that there was "Zip in all of Idaho" with regards to business for the MILW is incorrect. On its main line and branches in Idaho, MILW served lumber mills in St. Maries, Wayland, Santa, Fernwood, Emerald Creek, Elk River, Spirit Lake, Post Falls, Huetter, and Coeur d'Alene. It also served ag-related businesses (grain, seed, hay, fertilizer, livestock) at Bovill, Setters, and Worley. I'm sure there are other locations I've failed to list. MILW also moved considerable log traffic along its Elk River Branch, much of it coming to the mills in St. Maries or getting dropped into the St. Joe River to ultimately move north across Lake Coeur d'Alene to other mills.
As for Spokane and its surroundings, there were no less than three separate match companies located adjacent to the MILW East Spokane Yard, not to mention cement and lumber traffic coming off the former I&WN branch from Metaline Falls. MILW in later years built an automobile unloading facility at its East Spokane Yard. Today, UP uses this ex-MILW yard (instead of the UP yard that once existed nearby), and UP continues to deliver autoracks to the ex-MILW facility.
I guess some clarifications are in order. First, my reference to "prosperous" towns in SD was tongue in cheek as none of those places ever amounted to anything. The PCE main line missed the biggest cities such as Pierre, Sioux Falls, and Rapid City, choosing to serve a lot of places like that on branch lines without the benefit of timely mainline service. The same is true for Idaho where the PCE bypassed all major manufacturing and city centers, only servicing the low volume, low profit margin sawmills and the cyclical and seasonal grain industry. Bovil, Setters, and Worley are hardly places to build a transcon to serve, and it's no wonder they went bankrupt.
I worked 11 years for a medium-sized mill in Montana that produced 30 million BF of finished lumber yearly. We were located 14 miles from the MILW Sunset Branch, but our 20 or so daily loads a day went by TRUCK, partly because of transloading costs, and partly because the MILW would PROBABLY have switched the branch only once a week, providing poor, untimely service. There were no other industries online on the branch, even tho it ran right past the Anaconda mill in Bonner, which the NP served. It was ten times the size of our mill, and was the largest mill in town.
My point is this -- MOST of the business went to other railroads that were already there and the MILW got the scraps. Ya, they may have had business, but would YOU invest hundreds of millions of bucks to pick up scraps that amounted to only 2 trains a day? As for the auto unloading facility in Spokane, that is probably true. I saw two or three autoracks on 263 passing thru Missoula on occasion -- LOTS of business, I guess For me it's not like it's a booming thing. All these guys that say the MILW served all of these industries I want to ask -- where were the trains? I never saw much of anything.
The NP passed thru Missoula where I lived -- with 15 or so trains per day. I'd spend an afternoon on the NP and always saw a good amount of activity and never got skunked, but I was REALLY lucky to catch a MILW train. Both the Thunderhawk (262) and the XL Special (261) passed thru when I was either busy or asleep, so that left 263 and 264. I saw the Thunderhawk only once -- about 11:30PM and it was REALLY rolling! I never saw the XL Special or 264 in the four years I lived there, so I guess they passed thru at night or when I was attending school. That left only 263 and one switcher for the entire city. Not exactly a blaze of glory in my book.
Can someone give a link to the link that shows the profiles of the lines in this area?
Thanks
ccltrains Can someone give a link to the link that shows the profiles of the lines in this area? Thanks
The best source that I know of for comparison of lines serving the PNW is "James J. Hill's Legacy to Railway Operations" by Earl J. Currie. Mr. Currie is a retired BN officer. The book was publish privately. If anyone is interested in purchasing it, contact me directly and I will give you his email address.
East of the Montana mountains, that is Havre on the GN, the GN had ruling grades of .65% in both directions, except for 1% between St. Paul and Minneapolis. MILW had 1.0% in both directions.
The GN crossed the main range of the Rocky Mountains on 1% grade westward and 1.8% eastward. The MILW had three mountain summits in Montana and Idaho. From East to West the Big Belt Mountains, summit at Loweth, 1.4% westward and 1.0% eastward, the main range at Pipestone Pass. 2.0% westward and 1.66% eastward, and St. Paul Pass Idaho 1.7% in both directions.
Summit elevation of GN's Marias Pass was 5213 feet; on the MILW Loweth was 5802, Pipestone Pass was 6347, and St. Paul Pass in the Bitter Root Mountains was 4170. Both the GN and the NP passed the longitude of St Paul Pass at elevations of about 2200 feet in river valleys. St Paul Pass required the MILW to lift its trains nearly half a mile higher than both the GN and NP. That costs serious money for both locomotives and fuel. The GN avoided the Big Belt Mountains entirely. The MILW and NP did not.
All three lines had to cross the Cascade Mountains in Washington state. The NP had the easiest job of it; Stampede Pass at 2852 feet and a 2.5 mile long tunnel. NP had the shortest helper district, Lester to Easton, about 20 miles. The GN's Stevens Pass was 2818 feet with a 7.79 mile tunnel. GN's approached the tunnel on 2.2% grades of about 12 miles on the west and 7 miles on the east. The GN's electrified district was about 75 miles long between Skykomish and Wenatchee.
Heading westward, the MILW crossed the Columbia River at Beverly, turned right and climbed for 17.2 miles on a 2.2% grade to the crest of the Saddle Mountains at 2445 feet with a short tunnel, and then dropped down a 1.6% grade to a low of 1585 feet at Ellensburg. The climb to the crest of Snoqualmie Pass and a roughly 2 mile tunnel at 2564 feet was at a gentle .7%, but the descent to Cedar River was 1.74% ruling grade. While Snoqualmie had the lowest summit elevation of the group, the 1000 foot climb from Ellensburg should be added for comparison. The MILW had to lift its eastward trains a total of about 3500 feet above Puget Sound, 700 feet more than its competitors to get over the Cascades. The fact that MILW helper grades were not contiguous probably encouraged the electrification between Tacoma and Seattle and Othello, a point 20 miles or so East of Beverly, something on the order of 250 route miles.
MILW partisans claim the MILW was shorter. They are correct. MILW was 2188 miles Chicago to Seattle. GN was 2250, and the NP was 2335 miles. After the BN merger the BN preferred freight route was/is 2201 miles.
As for me and my house I choose the GN on the basis of grades and operating cost.
Mac McCulloch
Sun Tzu defined 13 principles in his The Art of War while Napoleon listed 115 maxims. American Civil War General Nathan Bedford Forrest required only one: "get there firstest with the mostest".
http://www.easy-strategy.com/strategy-principles.html
Steel blade, or steel rail, sound advice.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.