I found the June TRAINS Map of the Month ("Crossing the Cascades") fascinating and raising (for me) questions:
From the maps and grade profiles, the Milwaukee Road's Snoqualmie Pass crossing (even the original "High Line" prior to completion of the tunnel) appears greatly superior to its rival NP and GN crossings, even though it was the last route built.
What were the factors and considerations that led NP (which earlier chose virtually the same route west of Ellensburg) to shortcut through a higher and more difficult Stampede Pass enroute to Puget Sound? The NP's ultimate arrival at Puget Sound between Seattle and Tacoma does not differ much from the Milwaukee's similar arrival and the map information certainly doesn't explain why the NP concluded the Stampede Pass route as advantageous.
More inexplicable (to me) is the GN's decision to cross the Cascades at Stevens Pass which with the original switchbacks at an elevation not indicated on the map but well above that of the first Cascade tunnel completed 7 years later and itself 800 feet higher than Snoqualmie. The ultimate Stevens Pass route after completion of the second, 7.8 mile-long Cascade Tunnel is still 330 feet higher than the Snoqualmie route with significantly worse grades (2.34% westbound compared to 0.70% max for the Milwaukee route; 2.51% max eastbound vs. 1.74%). And the GN's route from Spokane to Seattle was 20 miles longer longer. The GN had the advantage of building 16 years prior to the Milwaukee so the Snowqualmie grade was available.
Hill's civil engineers were considered brilliant in locating the low-grade, low-elevation crossing of the Rockies at Marias Pass, but considering the construction, maintenance, and operating costs of Stevens Pass (including the additional costs for the tunnel-specific electrification), the route appears to have been a colossal mistake. Selecting Snoqualmie might well have blocked the Milwaukee from building its later competing route as I'm dubious the latter had the resources to tackle Stevens.
I'm also curious whether Burlington Northern ever considered trying to regain the abandoned Milwaukee right of way over Stevens and switching the traffic that crosses Stevens to that route. That would have mooted the ventilation limitations of the present Cascade tunnel.
I don't know the history of the various factors and considerations that led, first the NP and later the GN to forgo Snoqualmie for their respective Stampede and Stevens Pass routes. I'd love to hear from folks knowledgeable about this and/or who can refer me to good texts.
Bill Hoerger
WGH I found the June TRAINS Map of the Month ("Crossing the Cascades") fascinating and raising (for me) questions: From the maps and grade profiles, the Milwaukee Road's Snoqualmie Pass crossing (even the original "High Line" prior to completion of the tunnel) appears greatly superior to its rival NP and GN crossings, even though it was the last route built. I grew up in Wenatchee, worked for the GN there as a clerk, and made several trips with my Uncle over Stampede and have studied history of NP and GN in some detail so feel. qualified to comment. First, the profile Trains published is seriously misleading since its east end is about Ellensburg. The relevant east end point for all three lines is the Columbia River, that is Wenatchee GN, Beverly MILW, and Pasco NP. From Ellensburg eastward the MILW had a 6-7 mile climb at 1.6% to a tunnel. IIRC the station name was Boyleston. They key point is that this summit was very near the same elevation as everone's Cascade summits. This was followed by a 23 mile +/- descent to Beverly, all on 2.2% grade.That is why the MILW electrification extended from Seattle and Tacoma to Othello. Also look at the total rise and fall. Westbound the MILW had to drop a few hundred feet down to Ellensburg and then climb it back at the Cascades. This us called redundent grade and is very undesirable in terms of fuel consumption. Now think of helper grades in steam days. Both GN and NP had their helper grades adjacent to each other. MILW had two widely separated helper grades, each requireing support facilities. The MILW line was seriously inferior in terms of grades and the power required to surmount them. The electrification proves that. The MILW was the worst of the lot in terms of profile. What were the factors and considerations that led NP (which earlier chose virtually the same route west of Ellensburg) to shortcut through a higher and more difficult Stampede Pass enroute to Puget Sound? The NP's ultimate arrival at Puget Sound between Seattle and Tacoma does not differ much from the Milwaukee's similar arrival and the map information certainly doesn't explain why the NP concluded the Stampede Pass route as advantageous. The NP had the longest route across the state. The NP's west end, by charter was Puget Sound. The NP's first construction was between Kalama and Tacoma because the charter called for a line down the Columbia River to the the main line and the line over the Cascades to be a branch. Tacoma was a creation of the NP at a then vacant site at the mouth of the Puyallup River. This line was barely completed in the face of the panic of 1873, which was directly caused by the failure of Jay Cooke & Company who had advanced the NP so much money that Cooke became insolvent. By 1880 Henry Villard controlled the Oregon Railway and Navigation Company which was about to complete a rail line along the South bank of the Columbia River. Villard was a financier of great renown and he did not want the NP to build along the north bank of the river as its charter allowed. Villard raised $8,000,000 in his famous 'blind pool' and used the funds to purchase enough stock in the NP to gain effective control. That accomplished, he decreed that NP construction to the east start at Ainsworth, a vacant spot of ground on the north bank of the Snake River and the east bank of the Columbia that could be supplied by OR&N steamboats. Modern Pasco is only a few miles from old Ainsworth. Back on the west side of the Cascades, as the reorganized NP got back on its feet, the first construction after the panic was a 20-25 mile long branch up the Puyallyup river to the coal deposits at Wilkeson, completed in 1878 IIRC. The NP immediately began to haul trainloads of coal to a new coal pier at Tacoma. Most of the coal went to San Francisco which never had any good coal reasonably close by. The NP's goal for the Cascade branch was Tacoma, NOT Seattle. Snoqualmie Pass is a fine route to Seattle, but not to Tacoma. Stampede was the best available route to Tacoma, and the NP was able to use much of the coal branch as well. More inexplicable (to me) is the GN's decision to cross the Cascades at Stevens Pass which with the original switchbacks at an elevation not indicated on the map but well above that of the first Cascade tunnel completed 7 years later and itself 800 feet higher than Snoqualmie. The ultimate Stevens Pass route after completion of the second, 7.8 mile-long Cascade Tunnel is still 330 feet higher than the Snoqualmie route with significantly worse grades (2.34% westbound compared to 0.70% max for the Milwaukee route; 2.51% max eastbound vs. 1.74%). And the GN's route from Spokane to Seattle was 20 miles longer longer. The GN had the advantage of building 16 years prior to the Milwaukee so the Snowqualmie grade was available. Stevens Pass was used because Hill did not want a "me too" line, which the MILW was from the begining. Hill wanted to serve new teritory that would generate traffic for his railroad. It was about traffic not profile. In fact he got a very short line, 330 miles Spokane-Seattle, vs 396 for the modern NP. If the grades you quote above are from Trains they are wrong as to NP and GN. Both were/are 2.2% compensated both ways across the mountains. Hill's civil engineers were considered brilliant in locating the low-grade, low-elevation crossing of the Rockies at Marias Pass, but considering the construction, maintenance, and operating costs of Stevens Pass (including the additional costs for the tunnel-specific electrification), the route appears to have been a colossal mistake. Selecting Snoqualmie might well have blocked the Milwaukee from building its later competing route as I'm dubious the latter had the resources to tackle Stevens. I'm also curious whether Burlington Northern ever considered trying to regain the abandoned Milwaukee right of way over Stevens and switching the traffic that crosses Stevens to that route. That would have mooted the ventilation limitations of the present Cascade tunnel. I understand the BN did look at the MILW as a replacement for Stampede. The MILW ran several blocks in the street at Renton. Yes they could build a connection from about Henry's on the NP to avoid Renton for a few million dollars. At the time traffic on Stampede was no great volume and the BN ended up rerouting everything to the GN and the SP&S, mothballing Stampede for many years and making Snoqualmie a non issue. I don't know the history of the various factors and considerations that led, first the NP and later the GN to forgo Snoqualmie for their respective Stampede and Stevens Pass routes. I'd love to hear from folks knowledgeable about this and/or who can refer me to good texts. Bill Hoerger
I grew up in Wenatchee, worked for the GN there as a clerk, and made several trips with my Uncle over Stampede and have studied history of NP and GN in some detail so feel. qualified to comment.
First, the profile Trains published is seriously misleading since its east end is about Ellensburg. The relevant east end point for all three lines is the Columbia River, that is Wenatchee GN, Beverly MILW, and Pasco NP. From Ellensburg eastward the MILW had a 6-7 mile climb at 1.6% to a tunnel. IIRC the station name was Boyleston. They key point is that this summit was very near the same elevation as everone's Cascade summits. This was followed by a 23 mile +/- descent to Beverly, all on 2.2% grade.That is why the MILW electrification extended from Seattle and Tacoma to Othello.
Also look at the total rise and fall. Westbound the MILW had to drop a few hundred feet down to Ellensburg and then climb it back at the Cascades. This us called redundent grade and is very undesirable in terms of fuel consumption.
Now think of helper grades in steam days. Both GN and NP had their helper grades adjacent to each other. MILW had two widely separated helper grades, each requireing support facilities. The MILW line was seriously inferior in terms of grades and the power required to surmount them. The electrification proves that. The MILW was the worst of the lot in terms of profile.
The NP had the longest route across the state. The NP's west end, by charter was Puget Sound. The NP's first construction was between Kalama and Tacoma because the charter called for a line down the Columbia River to the the main line and the line over the Cascades to be a branch. Tacoma was a creation of the NP at a then vacant site at the mouth of the Puyallup River. This line was barely completed in the face of the panic of 1873, which was directly caused by the failure of Jay Cooke & Company who had advanced the NP so much money that Cooke became insolvent.
By 1880 Henry Villard controlled the Oregon Railway and Navigation Company which was about to complete a rail line along the South bank of the Columbia River. Villard was a financier of great renown and he did not want the NP to build along the north bank of the river as its charter allowed. Villard raised $8,000,000 in his famous 'blind pool' and used the funds to purchase enough stock in the NP to gain effective control. That accomplished, he decreed that NP construction to the east start at Ainsworth, a vacant spot of ground on the north bank of the Snake River and the east bank of the Columbia that could be supplied by OR&N steamboats. Modern Pasco is only a few miles from old Ainsworth.
Back on the west side of the Cascades, as the reorganized NP got back on its feet, the first construction after the panic was a 20-25 mile long branch up the Puyallyup river to the coal deposits at Wilkeson, completed in 1878 IIRC. The NP immediately began to haul trainloads of coal to a new coal pier at Tacoma. Most of the coal went to San Francisco which never had any good coal reasonably close by.
The NP's goal for the Cascade branch was Tacoma, NOT Seattle. Snoqualmie Pass is a fine route to Seattle, but not to Tacoma. Stampede was the best available route to Tacoma, and the NP was able to use much of the coal branch as well.
Stevens Pass was used because Hill did not want a "me too" line, which the MILW was from the begining. Hill wanted to serve new teritory that would generate traffic for his railroad. It was about traffic not profile. In fact he got a very short line, 330 miles Spokane-Seattle, vs 396 for the modern NP. If the grades you quote above are from Trains they are wrong as to NP and GN. Both were/are 2.2% compensated both ways across the mountains.
I understand the BN did look at the MILW as a replacement for Stampede. The MILW ran several blocks in the street at Renton. Yes they could build a connection from about Henry's on the NP to avoid Renton for a few million dollars. At the time traffic on Stampede was no great volume and the BN ended up rerouting everything to the GN and the SP&S, mothballing Stampede for many years and making Snoqualmie a non issue.
e
The italics mostly worked and, in any event, I had no trouble following your material. Many thanks for taking time to respond so comprehensively.
Bill
PNWRMNMI tried to cut my answers in, in italics. The cut in did not work. Sorry.
The method I usually use for cut-ins is to quote what I want in the usual manner, then highlight and copy the "quote" tag from the top of the quote, then paste it wherever a new quote of the original post will begin. Follow that with a copy and past of the "/quote" tag at the end of each quoted segment, then put your comments in between the two tags.
If you're posting from a phone, that might not be too easy, though. I rarely post from my phone, and if I do, I keep it simple.
Example - using {} instead of []:
{quote user="Some User"}Original Quote lorem ipsum, etc, etc{/quote}
Comment on said quote.
{quote user="Some User"}Second part of quote lorem ipsum, etc, etc{/quote}
Comment on second part of quote.
{quote user="Some User"}Third part of quote lorem ipsum, etc, etc{/quote}
Comment on third part of quote.
It may seem a little cumbersome, but it provides an easily understood format.
I've seen folks use color in a similar manner on another forum.
The result of the above:
Some UserOriginal Quote lorem ipsum, etc, etc
Some UserSecond part of quote lorem ipsum, etc, etc
Some UserThird part of quote lorem ipsum, etc, etc
If you're quoting from multiple users, just put their name in the quotes instead of whatever is there. Or, just use the "quote" tag minus the users name.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Larry,
That is what I wanted to do. The gist of it seems to be quote each part separately, which makes sense.
Thank you,
Mac
PNWRMNMThat is what I wanted to do. The gist of it seems to be quote each part separately, which makes sense.
You probably know this, but you can highlight just a part of a post, click on "Quote" and that's all that will move. The neat part about that is that you can do it repeatedly - just make sure your cursor in the reply box is where you want the next quote to land. Highlight the next quote, and click on "Quote." Voila!
The end effect would be the same as what I just described.
IIRC GN had the lowest crossing, as they followed rivers through the mountains...which is why during spring snow melt / run-off times they had to detour over the higher but drier NP.
BNSF Northwest Division TT#3 dated April 26, 2006 has much condensed track profiles. Scenic Subdivision (GN) summit is over 2800', say 2840'. Stampede summit (NP) is just over 2800', say 2810'. Not enough to get excited about either way.
Both routes generally follow the rivers, but the GN does get its feet wet between Snohomish and Lowell and I can remember one year the GN got hit hard between Cashmere and Peshastin, including a thru truss bridge knocked off one pier. The NP Palmer cutoff is high and dry, but it is only about 20 miles long. I suspect the comment about water damage may be correct, but would like to see 100 years worth of records before drawing any firm conclusions.
The NP had nothing comparable to the GN's slide problems along the sound between Ballard and Everett Jct.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.