dakotafred but believe you me this is not the way it was represented to the public.
I completely agree. It was a shell game designed in part to soothe the segment of the public that relished passenger rail.
I was working for a railroad and keeping up with the news during Penn Central and the creation of Amtrak. "Insiders" can claim Amtrak was supposed to be only a flag stop enroute to abandonment, but believe you me this is not the way it was represented to the public.
To the extent abandonment was the real plan all along, shame on the planners for their misrepresentation to the public.
Instead, we have seen another example of the hardihood of ALL government programs, worthy or not. I would count Amtrak among the worthy survivors.
BaltACD It is always easier to criticize decisions after they have been made and one can see how they turned out than it is to make the decisions at the time they have to be made with the information available at that time.
Exactly. Amtrak was intended to die a quick and quiet death, with the similar to SD40-2 SDP40Fs going to freight railroads. Then, in 1973, OPEC decided to start the oil embargo...
NorthWestThe author argues that it would have been cheaper for the railroads to continue to operate them and then cancel them all when capacity was cheap than to join Amtrak and eventually deal with their trains that do not pay full access costs.
Didn't most people at the outset expect Amtrak to fade into oblivion? I seem to recall a Don Philips installment where he states that the one thing no one ever expected was for Amtrak to survive 40 years and become a budget "hot potato" (my metaphor, not his)
It is always easier to criticize decisions after they have been made and one can see how they turned out than it is to make the decisions at the time they have to be made with the information available at that time.
Blunders are in the eyes of the beer holders.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Under the Amtrak legislation, railroads could either join or operate their trains into the late 1970s when they could legally be discontinued (I don't remember the specific year), which a few railroads did.
The author argues that it would have been cheaper for the railroads to continue to operate them and then cancel them all when capacity was cheap than to join Amtrak and eventually deal with their trains that do not pay full access costs.
chutton01 Blunder 2 was "joining Amtrak" - and if I am reading that one right, basically it boils down to railroads shouldn't have joined Amtrak, but just let LD passenger service vanish by the 1970s?
I may be wrong, and if I am then I'm sure someone will jump in to correct me. But I always thought that the major railroads, prior to Amtrak, were obligated to furnish passenger rail, as a public service. Something to do with their having been given the power of eminent domain back during their growth phase. Mom, apple pie, and serving "the greater common good" and all that noise. (As an aside, I always thought that was where the expression "accommodation run" came in as a description of some passenger service. The railroad was providing the service as an accommodation to public need, rather than in true business spirit.)
The primary benefit (within this line of thinking) of Amtrak to the railroads being that it relieved them of that obligation. I look forward to the collective responses that are sure to follow.
I loved those old Taj Mahal railroad stations -- they were things of beauty and real monuments to the aspiring instincts of man and business. BUT --
Just the property taxes on them -- especially in the East, where the real edifices were and the taxes highest -- helped guarantee a passenger deficit for owner railroads and could not be sustained. To that extent, I understand the 'Amshacks' that have taken their place and think they will do very nicely for the few trains they host every day.
We can rebuild and pay taxes on cathedrals when Americans return to passenger trains in a meaningful way.
Incidently, a city does not have to wait on Amtrak. The best station new or old I saw on an extended trip last fall was New Orleans', which is a transit center for all surface modes that, although new, has that old heroic railroad feel.
Convicted OneWhat can one think? I was shocked to see Penn Station included as one of the biggest blunders in RAILROADING. Gee, how many railroads even think passenger rail is important today? How many are sitting around thinking "If we just had an opulant passenger terminal in Manhattan, we could operate a successful passenger business!"? How many of the class one's have any desire at all to be involved in passenger rail?
Gee, how many railroads even think passenger rail is important today? How many are sitting around thinking "If we just had an opulant passenger terminal in Manhattan, we could operate a successful passenger business!"? How many of the class one's have any desire at all to be involved in passenger rail?
dakotafredhate these lists disguised as news stories wherever they appear. They are strictly sausage stuffers, and should be regarded as such by readers.
What can one think? I was shocked to see Penn Station included as one of the biggest blunders in RAILROADING.
I could see the demolition of Penn Station being included in such a list in Architectural Digest perhaps. But including it's demise in a railroad-centric account, seems just a little too weepy, sticky, sweet sentimentalist to me.
CSSHEGEWISCH NP/MILW would have definitely been the weak sister and would have been stuck with a redundant Twin Cities-Seattle line. GN had a better engineered main and Burlington had a better network of Midwest routes. While the NP main has not been abandoned, much of it is leased to and operated by Montana Rail Link, not BNSF.
NP/MILW would have definitely been the weak sister and would have been stuck with a redundant Twin Cities-Seattle line. GN had a better engineered main and Burlington had a better network of Midwest routes. While the NP main has not been abandoned, much of it is leased to and operated by Montana Rail Link, not BNSF.
I think everyone has agreed that NP was the weak sister. Nevertheless, BN wisely kept the MRL line as a reserve, even guaranteeing them a certain number of trains to make sure they stayed in business. Many of the responders to this post look at the merger from the same point of view of the BN, saying that it was not a mistake. I think the original thesis of the Trains article was that it was a mistake from the point of view of the health of the railroad industry as a whole. After the merger, the MILW failed and the NP main was downgraded. Apparent competition eliminated. If the merger didn't happen, even a struggling NP/MILW would have kept the GN/CB&Q on their toes, and from becoming complacent. They (NP/MILW) probably would have been swollowed up by the UP eventually, providing actual competition in the northern corridor.
Uncle JakeNP did have a branch network in eastern Washington's grain country that was much more extensive than that of the GN.
"Morgan, it all depends on whose ox is being gored."
If you know the source of this quote, no further explanation is necessary; if you don't, it'd take too long for me to find and explain it.
- PDN.
NP Eddie I strongly disagree that the NP was a weak railroad. Remember that I worked for the NP from April 1966 until the BN merger. The NP had on line coal in North Dakota, sugar beets in eastern Montana and the fruit belt in the Yakima valley. Don't forget all the grain the NP hauled. Ed Burns
I strongly disagree that the NP was a weak railroad. Remember that I worked for the NP from April 1966 until the BN merger. The NP had on line coal in North Dakota, sugar beets in eastern Montana and the fruit belt in the Yakima valley. Don't forget all the grain the NP hauled.
Ed Burns
Ed,
I can't see where anyone said the NP was a weak railroad; the reference was weaker compared to GN and CB&Q.
With regard to your mention of commodities: The coal along the NP in North Dakota was lignite, which is the worst kind there is (that's why today it's not shipped any long distance; the only thing that makes lignite economically feasible is where the facility using it is very close by, but higher grade sub-bituminous from Montana and Wyoming is shipped all over by rail, even to North Dakota); Sugar beets were not handled any great distance, rather just to a processing plant such as in Sidney or Billings (therefore low margin freight); Today, all the traffic out of the Yakima Valley is handled on one daily local making a Yakima turn out of Pasco; NP probably served a grain producing area in North Dakota on par with GN, but didn't go to South Dakota at all. Today on BNSF, there are 23 shuttle grain facilities accessed by former GN trackage in Minnesota, but only 2 on ex-NP; In Montana, of the 23 shuttle grain facilities today, 20 are on ex-GN routes, but only 3 on former NP.
That doesn't make it a weak railroad just a weaker one. But much stronger than the Milwaukee, to be sure.
Mark Meyer
Redore BN was hardly a blunder as stated in the article. NP and MILW were the two weaker roads and probably would have ultimately failed. GN-CBQ would have wound up with the GN ore business in Minnesota, the Powder River coal boom, most of the North Dakota oil boom, the best intermodal route Seattle/Portland to Chicago, a main line Chicago to Denver, and a mainline to Texas. I don't buy that portion of the article.
BN was hardly a blunder as stated in the article. NP and MILW were the two weaker roads and probably would have ultimately failed. GN-CBQ would have wound up with the GN ore business in Minnesota, the Powder River coal boom, most of the North Dakota oil boom, the best intermodal route Seattle/Portland to Chicago, a main line Chicago to Denver, and a mainline to Texas.
I don't buy that portion of the article.
NP/MILW would have failed? How much of the NP mainline has been abandoned by BNSF? Is it not busy? How much of the MILW Chicago-Twin Cities main has been abandoned? How about from there to Terry, MT? If NP/MILW had been shut out of Powder River, they could have built the Tongue River line themselves, and tapped in as the UP did. How much traffic would the BNSF Denver line have if they did not have access to the ex-DRGW/WP line?
Revisionist history always has an agenda.
MidlandMike The MRL is nice to have as an alternative when BNSF has a traffic surge, however, as long as they have access, they might not want to own it.
The MRL is nice to have as an alternative when BNSF has a traffic surge, however, as long as they have access, they might not want to own it.
dakotafred Mike: Besides coal, oil, ethanol and puh-lenty of grain, the former NP east of Billings catches overflow traffic from the High Line and is a critical resort when something goes wrong up there. Don't bet on management making the Montana Rail Link mistake twice.
Mike: Besides coal, oil, ethanol and puh-lenty of grain, the former NP east of Billings catches overflow traffic from the High Line and is a critical resort when something goes wrong up there.
Don't bet on management making the Montana Rail Link mistake twice.
As I have mentioned before, I think the ex-NP east of Glendive, where most of the trafic you mentioned originates, is safe for the foreseeable future. However, west of there is heavily coal dependent. I have heard the anecdotal stories of BN operations people who were sorry to lose the MRL milage. Nevertheless, I understand the plan after the projected Tongue River shortcut was to have been built, was to continue spinning-off more NP line east to Miles City to MRL. The MRL is nice to have as an alternative when BNSF has a traffic surge, however, as long as they have access, they might not want to own it.
mudchicken carnej1 Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Milwaukee Road ask to be included in the Burlington Northern Merger? IIRC, BN didn't want it.. They asked in March 1973 (3 years after BN hatched).... MILW shot themselves in the foot.
carnej1 Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Milwaukee Road ask to be included in the Burlington Northern Merger? IIRC, BN didn't want it..
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Milwaukee Road ask to be included in the Burlington Northern Merger?
IIRC, BN didn't want it..
They asked in March 1973 (3 years after BN hatched)....
MILW shot themselves in the foot.
If I correctly recall the proposed C&NW-Milwaukee road merger (which actually began as a proposed threeway merger that would also have included the Rock Island) made some sense when initially discussed in the early 60's but the I.C.C approval process dragged on until it was a moot point..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
I would think the only Milwaukee trackage NP would have wanted was the Twin Cities to Milwaukee and Chicago main line and very little else. UP would have wanted Chicago access. NP would have been hard pressed to survive if GN had gotten the Burlington and the UP got acess to Chicago. The NP would have sought merger with GN sometime in the 1970's. Most Milwaukee trackage would have been abandoned shortly after the merger, had it happened.
ALL:
I thought it would be good to tell of two mistakes the BN/BNSF made. First was MRL. Dennis was an NP clerk that bid from Northtown to Laurel, Montana immediately after the 1970 merger. He told me that the BN was sorry for the sale before the ink was dry on the paperwork. Gary is a retired SOO/BN/BNSF train dispatcher. He said that Dennis Washington has the best haulage agreement. When the BN/BNSF train hits Jones Junction, the MRL gets paid.
About 1998, Rob Krebs was at Northtown for an open meeting. I ask him abou the re-purchase of the Washington Central (Stampede line) for 30 million. All he said that a previous administration was to blame. It was sold for 3 million!
The BNSF will not repeat previous mistakes.
MidlandMike VerMontanan, The real circuity in the Soo/CP/SI/UP route comes after Spokane, wher it takes the trip over the UP via Hinkle/Portland/Seattle.
VerMontanan, The real circuity in the Soo/CP/SI/UP route comes after Spokane, wher it takes the trip over the UP via Hinkle/Portland/Seattle.
Not really, because BNSF uses the same circuity. (It's actually not circuity, it's the case of not using 125% more power to move the trains over the mountains.) Remember, we're talking Twin Cities to Pacific Northwest. Except for intermodal (which there is relatively little of from the Twin Cities or Dakotas to the Norhtwest), BNSF merchandise, coal, crude, and grain is routed via Pasco and Vancouver, WA to Seattle/Tacoma, pretty much paralleling the CP/UP route. With regard to grain, it's also important to remember that more goes to Portland, Vancouver, Kalama, and Longview than to Tacoma and Seattle anyway. Crude is destined mostly to BNSF-captive locations, CP has given BNSF trains from the Bakken at New Westminster, BC for delivery to port facilities north of Bellingham.
MidlandMike While I don't think that a BNSF spin-off of the ex-NP east of Billings is imminent, I would not want to guess beyond 5 years out. Are not most of the upgrades they are doing on the route in he Bakken Field? Between oil field production decline curves and pipeline competition, that business could disappear as fast as it started.
While I don't think that a BNSF spin-off of the ex-NP east of Billings is imminent, I would not want to guess beyond 5 years out. Are not most of the upgrades they are doing on the route in he Bakken Field? Between oil field production decline curves and pipeline competition, that business could disappear as fast as it started.
Yes, most of the upgrades are in the Bakken Field, but on multiple routes. Ex-Great Northern routes across North Dakota have seen the most upgrades, but on the ex-Northern Pacific route has seen them also. Extra yard tracks have been added at Forsyth and Glendive, as well as about three extra sidiings between Forsyth and Casselton. Glendive to Casselton should be all CTC by the end of this year, whereas a couple of years ago, none was.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.