Trains.com

CMStP&P Transcon

15423 views
97 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January 2008
  • From: Big Blackfoot River
  • 2,787 posts
Posted by Geared Steam on Sunday, November 3, 2013 10:31 AM

Interesting thread, please don't "get over it" and keep the discussion going.

"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein

http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,831 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Sunday, November 3, 2013 11:21 AM

MP173

Great points Greyhound.  In 1970-1980 era there just wasn't enough traffic for MILW and RI to be profitable, particularly with the regulatory environment at that time.  It is interesting to note, as has been pointed out, the evolution of the MILW and RI lines.  Many of the RI lines are still in use.  Not so much the MILW.  There is a reason for that.

There is a reason that the RI line from Chicago to Council Bluffs is still in use but not the MILK line, except to Sabula.  That portion of the line exists today simply as an alternative route for Chicago to KC and Twin Cities, plus KC - Twin Cities traffic.  It is a desirable route, but it is an alternative and as the economy grows, it will see small growth, unless something BIG happens (oil, more corn, drying of Mississippi River).

 

Investors cannot efficiently hold large capital investments awaiting a "BIG" event, unless there are indications it will occur.  Would the PCE be efficient today?  My guess (and only a guess) is that it would have very small levels of traffic.  Why?  There are better routes available.  More efficient, quicker, and cheaper.  At some point the PCE might have been viable, when all capacity is filled and there is no room at the inn.  

Today's railroading environment suggests that expansion will result in a more unorthodox manner.  Instead of building new lines, the rails will simply prune off the less desirable and profitable business.  Thus, growth will be more of a higher return on investment rather than true volume growth.

ed

MP173

Great points Greyhound.  In 1970-1980 era there just wasn't enough traffic for MILW and RI to be profitable, particularly with the regulatory environment at that time.  It is interesting to note, as has been pointed out, the evolution of the MILW and RI lines.  Many of the RI lines are still in use.  Not so much the MILW.  There is a reason for that.

There is a reason that the RI line from Chicago to Council Bluffs is still in use but not the MILK line, except to Sabula.  That portion of the line exists today simply as an alternative route for Chicago to KC and Twin Cities, plus KC - Twin Cities traffic.  It is a desirable route, but it is an alternative and as the economy grows, it will see small growth, unless something BIG happens (oil, more corn, drying of Mississippi River).

 

Investors cannot efficiently hold large capital investments awaiting a "BIG" event, unless there are indications it will occur.  Would the PCE be efficient today?  My guess (and only a guess) is that it would have very small levels of traffic.  Why?  There are better routes available.  More efficient, quicker, and cheaper.  At some point the PCE might have been viable, when all capacity is filled and there is no room at the inn.  

Today's railroading environment suggests that expansion will result in a more unorthodox manner.  Instead of building new lines, the rails will simply prune off the less desirable and profitable business.  Thus, growth will be more of a higher return on investment rather than true volume growth.

ed

I don't know where you guys are getting your information from but a large portion of the Milwaukee Road lines are in use East of the Dakota's.    Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Mo, MN   Still have a large chunk of former Milwaukee Road lines in use.     Some of what is not in use is rail banked as valuable future passenger routes.......two examples:

The former Milwaukee and Mississippi mainline.....now a branch from Brookfield, WI to the former Soo Line interchange  is railbanked.........rails and bridges still in place under the weeds.      Wisconsin and Southern almost brought it back to life but the Nimby's killed it with their lawyers.   Still WS-DOT is holding onto the line for potential future passenger service.

The former Air Line from Elm Grove into Milwaukee's Muskego Yard via West Allis is now a trail but also held in reserve as well by the WS-DOT.     One day it will be a light rail line because of it's proximity to the Brewers Stadium as well as State Fair Park.

Agree that most of the PCE is gone but certainly that does not extend to the Eastern Lines.

  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Antioch, IL
  • 4,369 posts
Posted by greyhounds on Sunday, November 3, 2013 3:03 PM

MP173

.

Today's railroading environment suggests that expansion will result in a more unorthodox manner.  Instead of building new lines, the rails will simply prune off the less desirable and profitable business.  Thus, growth will be more of a higher return on investment rather than true volume growth.

ed

.

I'll disagree.  Today's railroads are dealing with capacity problems in several ways.  Getting rid of marginal business is just one of those ways.

Railroads are putting down new rail.  The UP is adding a second main between El Paso and LA. The BNSF, and its predecessor lines, has been in a capacity expansion mode for 20 years.  First on the Transcon and now on the former Great Northern/SP&S.  NS and CSX are doing similar capex.   That's one way to expand capacity.

Building new intermodal terminals is certainly a capacity expansion.  That's happening.

Another way is to increase the capacity of freight cars.  And that's certainly going on with the maximum weight limit on some lines now at 315,000 pounds.

DPU is allowing huge trains.  Moving  those huge freight cars.  More capex.

.Yet another way is the concentration on intermodal trains and unit trains.  These trains don't need classification yards and bypass those capacity choke points.

There are various ways to deal with the need for additional rail freight capacity.  And the railroad companies are using every way they can.

"By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that.
  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,827 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Sunday, November 3, 2013 3:17 PM

MP173

 

There is a reason that the RI line from Chicago to Council Bluffs is still in use but not the MILK line, except to Sabula.  

 

ed

About 100 miles of the MILW Council Bluffs main line in western Iowa is still in use.  A few large grain elevators and at least one large ethanol plant (built after the MILW quit) are on it.  Originally after the MILW shut down, it was bought by a shipper's group and operated by the BN/BNSF. It escapes me at the moment, but I think the BN/BNSF was leasing it from the group.  In any event, a few years ago the BNSF bought it outright.  That business, plus another elevator at Pickering Iowa (now served by UP on the exMSTL/CNW line south of Marshalltown, IA) probably would've made continued operation viable.  

The MILW in 1978 started operating over the CNW between Clinton, IA and Tama, IA.  They still operated a way freight from Green Island (junction with the still existing river line) to Marion/Cedar Rapids on their own line.  I think long term, they planned to also abandon Green Island to Marion and use the CNW to access their CR/Marion area trackage.  As far as I've been able to tell, there was no service between M/CR and Tama then on the MILW line.  It seemed they wanted to originally keep the viable parts and abandon the in-between part of the route in favor of trackage rights over CNW. 

I have read at times that when planning on what lines to retain, early on the plan was to keep the CB route and drop the KC route.  This changed to the final plan where they kept KC and dropped CB.  Some things that I've thought contributed to this change follows.  One was the RI was quitting, removing one competitor on the KC route (not to mention the business the MILW picked up from former RI customers in the QC/Iowa City area provided almost half the revenue for the reduced core system).  Another was the UP agreed to interchange traffic at KC that had formerly interchanged at CB.  I think one more was that if they got out of the Chicago-Council Bluffs lane, one that the DOT had identified as having too many routes, that the DOT would be more inclined to give help to the MILW elsewhere.  The RI had tried to save the entire railroad and got little help from the US Government.  By the late 1970s, the Feds were betting that the CNW (understandably so, since they had become the UP's best friend) would be the survivor, not the MILW or RI.  The 4R money went to the CNW, very little to the RI for any work on it's system.  I feel that the MILW couldn't help but notice that and decide that if they wanted any chance to receive Government help, they had to get out of CB.

Jeff     

    

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,015 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, November 3, 2013 3:20 PM

Can anyone list those specific routes that where service was discontinued that have reopened?   I believe there have been several.

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,827 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Monday, November 4, 2013 7:38 AM

In addition to the Chicago-CoBluffs line that still exists, there were a couple more sections that survived about 20 years, but have since been abandoned.  There were elevators at Dawson, Woodward and Slater that loaded grain trains into 2000.  (I pulled one of the last ones from Dawson.  The reason they quit loading was that a larger cooperative bought out the cooperative that owned them and now trucks the grain to elevators on the UP, exCNW, main.  The abandonment between Woodward and Slater allowed the UP to reuse parts of the bridge over the Des Moines River in their new Kate Shelley bridge.)

There are also two large elevators that no longer ship grain.  (It's amazing to see a large concrete elevator abandoned.)  I don't know when they went out of business.  Both had access to rail service, one is on one of the now abandoned sections, the other while built next to the MILW had access to the CNW (via the exRI Spine line) and could load unit trains.  

These additions had slipped my mind.  There have been a lot of changes since 1980 and sometimes it's hard to remember what was then.  Changes not only in how railroads, especially the large ones, do business, but changes in what business is out there.  What is now may not have been then and what was then may be gone now.  I think sometimes we lose sight of those changes, seeing things today and imposing them on what was then.

Jeff

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 1,486 posts
Posted by Victrola1 on Monday, November 4, 2013 8:10 AM

The government basically took control of the railroads in 1906 while leaving ownership in private hands. "Fair" rules and rates would be applied. Public service before profit. "Fair" aside, what effect?

Milwaukee management knew they needed to merge, or expand into new markets. Did management see regulation as a game changer that would guarantee them a piece of a market moved into? 

Merger could be seen as less of an option under government control. The C. B. & Q. had found refuge in the Hill empire. That triggered the Northern Securities case. That delayed BN for a long time. If you can not move into an existing home, take the risk and build your own.

Assume the Milwaukee built to the coast without regulation. The debt involved and lack of traffic still brings on bankruptcy shortly after completion. In a free market, what fate? If proven unprofitable so soon after completion, would anybody want the entire line to the coast? 

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: NotIn, TX
  • 613 posts
Posted by VerMontanan on Friday, November 8, 2013 9:20 AM

CMStPnP

 

I don't know where you guys are getting your information from but a large portion of the Milwaukee Road lines are in use East of the Dakota's.    Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Mo, MN   Still have a large chunk of former Milwaukee Road lines in use.     Some of what is not in use is rail banked as valuable future passenger routes.......two examples:

The former Milwaukee and Mississippi mainline.....now a branch from Brookfield, WI to the former Soo Line interchange  is railbanked.........rails and bridges still in place under the weeds.      Wisconsin and Southern almost brought it back to life but the Nimby's killed it with their lawyers.   Still WS-DOT is holding onto the line for potential future passenger service.

The former Air Line from Elm Grove into Milwaukee's Muskego Yard via West Allis is now a trail but also held in reserve as well by the WS-DOT.     One day it will be a light rail line because of it's proximity to the Brewers Stadium as well as State Fair Park.

Agree that most of the PCE is gone but certainly that does not extend to the Eastern Lines.

 

Interesting that you should say that.  One of the claims I've heard repeated by pro-PCE enthusiasts is that it (the PCE) was the most profitable part of the MILW "transcontinental" route, but that MILW management only cared about the eastern part of the railroad so the PCE was jettisoned.
 
Of course, once again, history has proven them wrong.  The MILW "transcontinental" route remains mostly intact from Chicago to Terry, MT.  Between Chicago and the Twin Cities, it is a vital artery for Canadian Pacific, and between Appleton, MN and Terry it is an important secondary mainline for BNSF.  PCE enthusiasts also bemoaned that lost of MILW trackage in Montana would create a monopoly (even though the MILW handled an insignificant amount of Montana origin/destination cars in the state), but today former MILW trackage pretty much monopolizes rail traffic (except for the comparatively little handled by CP and DAIR) in South Dakota!
 
About ten years ago, only 48 percent of trackage operated by the MILW in 1970 was still in operation.  It's probably a bit less now.  All Granger railroads have seen a significant reduction in route mileage as redundant branch lines have been abandoned, but clearly, the large amount of reduction in mileage for the MILW was due to trackage abandoned west of Terry.  So, it's true, if one only considers the Milwaukee east of Terry, Montana, it's remarkable that trackage survives in places like the UP of Michigan, Indiana, Missouri, as well as along the "main line" and blanketing eastern South Dakota.
 
Clearly, the weakness of the PCE as skewed the perception of the viability of the Milwaukee's routes as a whole.  But this shouldn't be the case because 33+ years after the demise of the PCE, so many (from Terry east) survive.

 

 

Mark Meyer

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy