What happen to Milwaukee Road?

[Anonymous]

Holy freedom of speech, Batman!  I thought all the Milwaukee threads were locked!  Maybe the Great Censor will let this one run on (?).

[Anonymous]

   Not much different from what happened to the good old EL in the east. But the reason I'm on here, is I wanted to sell some MLW fotos I purchased from a hobbyshop. I myself am a retired engineer (hired out in 1959 onthe former ERIE RR) and have been on ERIE, EL, old AUTO-TRAIN, AMTRAK and TRI-RAIL. About 25 or so years ago, I was in a hobbyshop that had a big HO layout in the rear and under the platform was a box with cobwebs on it. I saw a B&W foto and asked the owner where he got the fotos. He told me his mom was in Montana buying 'indian stuff' and bought the RR pix. I bought them from him and have had them since. These are mostly B&W prints with a few color prints here & there. Looking at them, I recognized some of Dick Steinheimer's work so I called him about it. He advised me that he'd taken them in the 60s. There were also some Asahel Curtis fotos from the Univ. of Washington collection..outstanding...like going back in time. I always liked the Milwaukee road and have the book 'MILWAUKEE ROAD IN COLOR'. By using this book, I've been able to place where some of the pix were taken (since most of them have no ID). I guess the lady had been to flea markets selling them since many of the prints have $8.00 or $12.00 on the back.

    At  any rate, since I will be 70 this summer, I'm selling things I've collected off and decided that rather than going to traiinshows or E-Bay I'd notify you guys that are Milwaukee fans since that's what I've done with my Erie-Lackawanna stuff - offer it to the EL website first. Anyone interested in owning some of the fotos, please contact me at [e-mail]

Regards to all,

Walter E. Smith

[Anonymous]

While I,m sure you have received several good answers to your question, you can also do a little research at this site to get another source of info.  Great historical reference and photos.  Go to

www.mrha.com

Hope this helps.

[Anonymous]

The term 'railbanked' is used for railroad right-of-ways that are preserved in case they are needed later on for transportation. You can look it up in Wikipedia but remember, the definitions there can change with the next viewer.

Once they become trails or linear parks, relaying tracks is usually out of the question. 

Some entity, conservancy group or city/state, not the railroad, usually has control over its use. 

Art

[Anonymous]

Futuremodel Dave

Have you ever looked at going under White Pass to the Eastern end of the T and E.  I remember the subject comming up once, but a tunnell in the manner of Moffett and Stevens should keep the grade low and also let Washington have its John Wayne Trail.

I have not checked, but have driven over Hwy 12 and it would seem a long electrified tunnel would work and also provide an entrance into Western Oregon and Washington midway between Portland and Seattle.

The way I look at it is this:  Which is easier to build - a railroad from scratch, or a trail from scratch?

Given that the PCE ROW is mostly intact between Beverly and the outskirts of Seattle, and given that much of this is owned by the State of Washington, in my view it would be much less expensive to secure the necessary railroad ROW between the truncated sections of the ex-Milwaukee and lay down the tracks again (and including the cost of building a new recreation trail elsewhere), than it would be to build a totally new railroad ROW between the Tacoma & Eastern and the eastside via White Pass.  Having a nice railroad grade already in place would cut down the costs dramatically.

I do like the notion of skewing an east-west State of Washington ex-PCE railroad further south through the Tri-Cities via the old SP&S ROW from where it intersected the PCE (the SP&S siding at the SP&S/PCE intersection was called MacCall, nothing's there now but the PCE/SP&S grade separation), then utilize the publicly owned Tri-Cities railroad, then the old Department of Defense rail grades back toward the northwest to Vernita, and then use the old Milwaukee Hanford branch grade back to the original PCE west of Beverely at the river crossing there.  Better yet, between Vernita and Boylston would be a good place to construct a new less steep grade up the Saddles to eliminate the need for helpers, and thus have a ruling westbound grade of the whole State-owned line of 1% or so, which would make it operationally feasable to run unit grain trains to Puget Sound without having to access the congested Gorge routes.  Plus, skewing down to the Tri-Cities would allow access to the barge ports for getting grain to the lower Columbia ports aka Portland, Vancouver, Kalama, Longview, et al.

Between the Cedar River ROW and the T&E might be difficult to obtain a ROW, since there is so much urban development, and BNSF still owns the branch from Palmer Junction to the T&E connection.  Maybe UP would allow overhead rights from Tukwilla south to Tacoma, but the PCE grade between Maple Valley and Tukwilla is mostly gone now due to development.  I guess the best choice might be to build a new grade from the Cedar River at the foothills of the Cascades south/southwest along the foothills to the T&E.  That's the only undeveloped land left around those parts.

[kenneo]

Futuremodel Dave

Have you ever looked at going under White Pass to the Eastern end of the T and E.  I remember the subject comming up once, but a tunnell in the manner of Moffett and Stevens should keep the grade low and also let Washington have its John Wayne Trail.

 

I have not checked, but have driven over Hwy 12 and it would seem a long electrified tunnel would work and also provide an entrance into Western Oregon and Washington midway between Portland and Seattle.

[Anonymous]

So as far as anyone knows, there were no plans for even a "high" bridge across the Columbia to reduce the 2.2% of Beverly to Boylston?  At 1300' elevation the shortest distance across Sentinal Gap is about a mile and a quarter, a tremendous length for a high (800' above the water) bridge no doubt.  But it would also have reduced the ruling grade from 2.2% to 1.25% at the same 18 miles between Boylston and the river, and would have required a new total realignment from Boylston to Smyrna, where the 1.25% would have begun.  So 30 miles of 1.25% vs 18 miles of 2.2%, with no increase in total rail miles.

That would have been some bridge - the French recently opened a highway bridge with similar specs (deck was 900+ feet above the valley floor). Interesting idea though.

Back then it would have been more practical to dig a long tunnel near the Boylston summit - the summit tunnel as constructed was only 2,000' long - a longer tunnel could have subtsantially reduced the EB grades and moderately reduced the WB grade. A 1.25% WB grade migh have been possible with a 7+ mile long tunnel by cutting 400' off of the summit. I suspect the tunnel would have been cheaper than the bridge.

Considering the expected amount of traffic, the interest on the extra construction would probably been much greater than the operational savings. One short but steep helper grade is not as bad as a succession of helper grades - e.g. the Yellowstone division of the NP.

Yeah, I guess the die was cast for the Saddle Mountain grades when Milwaukee chose Lind Coulee over Washtucna Coulee or Providence Coulee (e.g. about 20 miles farther south) for the mainline route through east-central Washington.  If Milwaukee had chose an original alignment farther south via Connell WA (or had built a secondary line that way), they could have crossed the Columbia at White Bluffs or Hanford.  Those crossing sites are about 25 miles more easterly than Beverly, thus allowing the eastern approach to the Saddle Mountain grade to start much sooner.  There is as good a pass as the one at Boylston about 12 miles south of Boylston, at about the same elevation, and using this pass would have allowed the Milwaukee to climb the north side of Umtanum Ridge at about a 1% max westbound grade, and no worse than a 1.5% eastbound grade up from the Kittitas Valley or the Yakima River Canyon, and probably could have managed a 1% eastbound.  And no addition to the total mainline mileage! 

Now we're talking no helper districts at all between Snoqualmie Pass and Avery, if not indeed Seattle to Avery, with max eastbound ruling grades of 1.7% up Snoqualmie and max westbound grade of 1%.  With the 5 mile St. Paul Pass tunnel and the Cadotte Pass route, Milwaukee then would have had 1% max westbound and 1.7% eastbound for the entire PCE.

[nanaimo73]

The Milwaukee Road abandoned the Grass Range to Winnett line in 1972 and Grass Range to Heath in 1980. BN bought the 9 miles from Lewiston to Heath and ran that until 1990.

A U.S. Gypsum wallboard plant was at Heath. It had been a good railroad business for the Milwaukee for many years -- good enough that BN bought the line in the first place. Second and third generation employees.

But it was one of the first victims of captive shipper pricing mentality: "they'll pay, they have no choice". BN raised the rates, and it was simply a matter of the rate increases exceeding the profit margin compared to other gypsum/wallboard plants more "favorably" located. U.S. Gypsum called BN's bluff, the plant closed in 1987 and nothing ran on the line after that. Missoulian, "Heath Wallboard Plant to Close," January 12, 1987.

Thanks Michael. I've wondered why BN wanted to serve Heath.

[MichaelSol]

From a different thread, more appropriately located here.

To answer someone else's question, Milwaukee went to both Seattle and Tacoma. Tacoma was the major terminal, at Tideflats, Seattle was the minor terminal at Stacey Street.

Stacey Street served the Port of Seattle, but Van Asselt served the larger Seattle area, and Kent was the specialized auto yard facility for the Puget Sound area. Tacoma was where the shops were located and the main yard facility, but was the smallest of the three ports in terms of revenue. In 1977 Seattle was a $38 million station, Portland $28 million (the subdivision produced $45 million), and Tacoma a little over $15 million. Tacoma and Seattle were in the same subdivision which generated $70 million total.

Two hundred miles of line (Seattle to Portland) generated $115 million in revenue on a system that otherwise produced $340 million over 10,000 miles of line.

With 1200 miles of line, the Washington (Coast) Division alone generated $170 million in 1977, compared to $285 million from the remaining 8,800 miles of system.

You can see the changes from the early years, when the PCE [west of Mobridge] produced only 25% of the gross revenues of the system (but 40% of the net). By 1977, the Washington Division alone was generating 37% of the system gross revenue, with only 11% of the system mileage, and 12% of the system employees.

[MichaelSol]

The Milwaukee Road abandoned the Grass Range to Winnett line in 1972 and Grass Range to Heath in 1980. BN bought the 9 miles from Lewiston to Heath and ran that until 1990.

A U.S. Gypsum wallboard plant was at Heath. It had been a good railroad business for the Milwaukee for many years -- good enough that BN bought the line in the first place. Second and third generation employees.

But it was one of the first victims of captive shipper pricing mentality: "they'll pay, they have no choice". BN raised the rates, and it was simply a matter of the rate increases exceeding the profit margin compared to other gypsum/wallboard plants more "favorably" located. The plant was too small to justify an STB proceeding, and BN knew it. But, U.S. Gypsum called BN's bluff, the plant closed in 1987 and nothing moved on the line after that. Missoulian, "Heath Wallboard Plant to Close," January 12, 1987.

The ultimate Aesop's fable applied to captive shippers -- demand too much, and in the long run end up with nothing ...

[nanaimo73]

The Milwaukee Road abandoned the Grass Range to Winnett line in 1972 and Grass Range to Heath in 1980. BN bought the 9 miles from Lewiston to Heath and ran that until 1990.

[erikem]

There are actually, I think, about 4 routes, two which go through Grassrange, one which follows the Missouri a bit East and then over the hill and down Box Elder Creek to the Mussellshell and then up the Mussellshell to the MILW about Melstone.  The second goes South of Grassrange via Ferngrove and Tyler to Willow Creek, thence on to Box Elder and the Mussellshell.  The others go through Grassrange and Winnett and then down Box Elder to Melstone.  Track had been graded as far East as Box Elder Creek through Grassrange according to my TOPOZONE topomaps.

The line to Grassrange was supposedly in service as late as 1973 - my 1973 RR Atlas shows the line ending at Grassrange - the 1928 Atlas shows the line ending in Winnett. Some of the DRG's that I've downloaded from the Montana GIS site show tracks between Lewistwon and Grassrange (1970 vinatge) while others show RR grade (1986 vintage). The 1970 vinatge DRG's show that the "southern line" (just below the 47th paralell) with tracks while the "northern line" is just a RR grade.

[kenneo]

Eric,

Yes, there are two of them Via Winnett, both of them had tracks over them and the rout was (aparently) laid nearly to the Mussellshell.  Here they would have turned South to the already laid main to Miles City.  One of these hills would have been eliminated by a tunnel (relatively short) and the other was close to 1% and wide and flat.

My personal opinion is that since the already had rails between Lewiston and Miles City via Judith Gap, that would have probably been the best way.

I did see a couple of routes between Lewistown and Grassrange - what looks like the older one was just north of the 47th parallel and the newer one just south of the 47th parallel. The newer one looked like a good candidate for a main line had a tunnel been put in the summit a few miles SE of Lewistown. The hardest costruction would have been first couple of miles heading towards Winnett from the Musselshell - beyond that, looks like pretty easy grading.

What was really frightening was the Milw line between Lewistwon and Great Falls - the Milw (or the St Paul as it was called back then) would have been well advised to use the Great Northern alignment - about 20 miles shorter, looks like fewer grades and much less curvature.

-  Erik

 

There are actually, I think, about 4 routes, two which go through Grassrange, one which follows the Missouri a bit East and then over the hill and down Box Elder Creek to the Mussellshell and then up the Mussellshell to the MILW about Melstone.  The second goes South of Grassrange via Ferngrove and Tyler to Willow Creek, thence on to Box Elder and the Mussellshell.  The others go through Grassrange and Winnett and then down Box Elder to Melstone.  Track had been graded as far East as Box Elder Creek through Grassrange according to my TOPOZONE topomaps.

[MichaelSol]

Chris30 wrote: My meaining of "[t]he Milwaukee Pacific Extension suffered going to Seattle"

Well, MILW was doing better on its investment than NP.

Between 1908 and 1923, the Northern Pacific suffered a negative 4.2% return on the $178 million in new investment made during those years, compared to the Milwaukee’s .6% return on its investment made between those years, which was better than the average of the peer group railroads, GN, NP, CBQ, CNW, MILW. Coverdale & Colpitts Consulting Engineers, The Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry Co., March, 1925, p. 55.

Coming from the Hill lines, Byram had heard all about the stupendous cost of the Milwaukee Road’s Pacific Extension, and the conventional wisdom that its traffic was thin and not earning a reasonable rate of return. As soon as he was on board, He commissioned an engineering and financial study on Lines West, with the idea of doing something about it. It had been "spoken of so many times," he felt he could approach the question without bias since he had not been involved, as Earling had, in the decision and construction. "Since the extension was opened for operation, there has been some difference of opinion in regard to the wisdom of that move." Byram was surprised by the result of the study: during 1917, the Pacific Extension "was producing 25% of the gross earnings [but] 40% of the net earnings of the Milwaukee Road." It was quite a revelation, and a proportion that would remain generally true for the life of the Milwaukee Road. Far from being a burden, the much-maligned Pacific Extension was generating a much better margin and was in fact highly profitable. First National City Company Study, "Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway", First National City Bank, 1922, p. 5

This continued right up until the end.

One of the significant pieces of information submitted to the ICC by its own Office of Rail Public Counsel and its accountant, David F. Miller, disclosed that the Milwaukee's expenses on its transcontinental operations had been sloppily handled, and in fact in some cases double-entered. Henri Rush, ICC Office of Public Rail Counsel, Personal Communication, October 31, 1979. Rush is now General Counsel, STB.

The Office of Public Rail Counsel pointed out that this made it appear unprofitable, when in fact, once the double-entered expenses were removed, the Milwaukee's Western extension was profitable, at a time when the railroad as a whole was losing over $100 million. Associated Press, "Desperate Effort to Save Ailing Railroad," November 3, 1979.

[MichaelSol]

From another thread, posted here because of Milwaukee content:

Originally posted by n012944
... The only reason the PCE was built was because when the Hill lines bought the Burlington, the MILW lost a lot of interchange traffic at the Twin Cites.

How did that happen?

Three years after its purchase, the Northern Lines were able to feed only 26% of their "Minnesota Terminal" traffic -- the traffic exchanged at St. Paul and Minneapolis -- to the Burlington, while the volume fed to the Milwaukee was nearly 34%, and James J. Hill pointed out that the Milwaukee had actually been increasing its traffic share of Minnesota Terminal traffic after 1901. [Letter, Hill to Robert Bacon, April 9, 1904, JJH Letterbook 6/01/02-6/07/05, p. 367. Hill Papers. James J. Hill Reference Library. Hill doubted that the Milwaukee could do as well even if it built a line to the coast].

[erikem]

Eric,

Yes, there are two of them Via Winnett, both of them had tracks over them and the rout was (aparently) laid nearly to the Mussellshell.  Here they would have turned South to the already laid main to Miles City.  One of these hills would have been eliminated by a tunnel (relatively short) and the other was close to 1% and wide and flat.

My personal opinion is that since the already had rails between Lewiston and Miles City via Judith Gap, that would have probably been the best way.

I did see a couple of routes between Lewistown and Grassrange - what looks like the older one was just north of the 47th parallel and the newer one just south of the 47th parallel. The newer one looked like a good candidate for a main line had a tunnel been put in the summit a few miles SE of Lewistown. The hardest costruction would have been first couple of miles heading towards Winnett from the Musselshell - beyond that, looks like pretty easy grading.

What was really frightening was the Milw line between Lewistwon and Great Falls - the Milw (or the St Paul as it was called back then) would have been well advised to use the Great Northern alignment - about 20 miles shorter, looks like fewer grades and much less curvature.

-  Erik

[erikem]

So as far as anyone knows, there were no plans for even a "high" bridge across the Columbia to reduce the 2.2% of Beverly to Boylston?  At 1300' elevation the shortest distance across Sentinal Gap is about a mile and a quarter, a tremendous length for a high (800' above the water) bridge no doubt.  But it would also have reduced the ruling grade from 2.2% to 1.25% at the same 18 miles between Boylston and the river, and would have required a new total realignment from Boylston to Smyrna, where the 1.25% would have begun.  So 30 miles of 1.25% vs 18 miles of 2.2%, with no increase in total rail miles.

That would have been some bridge - the French recently opened a highway bridge with similar specs (deck was 900+ feet above the valley floor). Interesting idea though.

Back then it would have been more practical to dig a long tunnel near the Boylston summit - the summit tunnel as constructed was only 2,000' long - a longer tunnel could have subtsantially reduced the EB grades and moderately reduced the WB grade. A 1.25% WB grade migh have been possible with a 7+ mile long tunnel by cutting 400' off of the summit. I suspect the tunnel would have been cheaper than the bridge.

Considering the expected amount of traffic, the interest on the extra construction would probably been much greater than the operational savings. One short but steep helper grade is not as bad as a succession of helper grades - e.g. the Yellowstone division of the NP.

[Anonymous]

 Did Milwaukee also have a wish list plan for Beverly to Boylston, or was electrification the sole solution offered? 

As for the 2.2% grade between Beverly and Boylston - sounds like a helper district to me. At 18 miles in length, it would have been a piece of cake compared to the Donner Pass line on the Espee. With the existing Coast line electrificatiion, the Milwaukee would have benefitted from max'ing out the capacity of the Doris and Kittitas Substations (i.e. three 2MW MG sets in each). This would have allowed a pair of EF-5's on a WB train to operate in full parallel - and allowed them to approach the 1 hour rating on tractive effort.

So as far as anyone knows, there were no plans for even a "high" bridge across the Columbia to reduce the 2.2% of Beverly to Boylston?  At 1300' elevation the shortest distance across Sentinal Gap is about a mile and a quarter, a tremendous length for a high (800' above the water) bridge no doubt.  But it would also have reduced the ruling grade from 2.2% to 1.25% at the same 18 miles between Boylston and the river, and would have required a new total realignment from Boylston to Smyrna, where the 1.25% would have begun.  So 30 miles of 1.25% vs 18 miles of 2.2%, with no increase in total rail miles.

[erikem]

Michael,

Thanks for the info. Not surprising that several of the subs could be changed into rectifier stations - where the grades are low enough that you wouldn't see much regeneration. Eustis was pretty much the center of the flattest part of the Rocky Mountain electrification - the spacing between Eustis and Piedmont was the longest on the entire line.

By the 1970's, it would have been possible to make an SCR substation that would absorb regenerated power - though I'm not sure any were built.

My understanding is that one reason for no Joe's on the Coast divsion was due to the weaker power supply compared with the Rocky Mountain section. Another reason is that the Joe's had more of a chance to "stretch their legs" in the Rockies.

 - Erik

[MichaelSol]

 With the existing Coast line electrificatiion, the Milwaukee would have benefitted from max'ing out the capacity of the Doris and Kittitas Substations (i.e. three 2MW MG sets in each). This would have allowed a pair of EF-5's on a WB train to operate in full parallel - and allowed them to approach the 1 hour rating on tractive effort.

Combined Proposal from Montana Power, Puget Sound Power & Light, Washington Water Power Co., November, 1969, to Milwaukee Road.

Existing, Proposed Capacity (MG, Motor Generator Sets, R, Rectifier)

Tacoma, 2000 Kw, 2000, Kw MG (or phase out when Black River done)
Black River Jct, (New Substation)4,400 Kw, R
Renton, 4000, 4,400, R
Cedar Falls, 4,000, 6,000, MG
Hyak, 4,000, 6,000, MG
Cle Elum, 3,000, 4,400, R
Kittitas, 4,000, 6000, MG
Doris, 6,000, 8,000, MG
Taunton, 4,000, 4,400, R

This proposal contemplated new Rectifier substations at Black River, Cle Elum, Taunton and Eustis, for the first phase, more later. The rectifier substations would all operate at 3900 vDC, max.

Doris would replace its 2, 2000 kw Westinghouse MG sets with 2 2,000 kw GE sets from Hyak and add a 4th 2,000 Kw GE MG set from Renton. That was budgeted for $30,000 to replace the two Westinghouse sets, $20,000 for substation building expansion, $35,000 to install the 4th MG set, and $10,000 for supervisory control equipment.

Kittitas would install a 3rd 2,000 Kw Westinghouse MG from Taunton on an existing foundation, at a cost of $22,000, with $10,000 for control equipment.

Hyak would replace 2 2,000 Kw GE MG sets with 2 2,000 Kw Westinghouse MG sets from Doris, and install a 3rd 2,000 Kw Westinghouse MG set from Taunton. Replace 2 MG sets, $30,000, add 1 MG set, $22,000 and supervisory control for $10,000.

Cedar Falls would get a 3rd 2,000 Kw GE MG set from Renton, $22,000
and Supervisory control for $10,000.

The Black River Rectifier substation would cost $360,000, Cle Elum Rectifier Sub, $330,000, Taunton Rectifier Sub, $348,000.

Cost of extending the Milwaukee 115 Kv line from Renton to Black River, $60,000. Puget Power & Light offered to pay the cost if it could use the line.

Telemeter load from six Coast substations to the Puget Power & Light dispatcher in Redmond, and from Redmond to the Milwaukee's Tacoma load dispatcher, $45,000.

[erikem]

An 8200' tunnel isn't that long for a 1910 era tunnel, unlike the wish list 5 mile tunnel under St. Paul Pass.  So it even with the Cadotte Pass realignment, the Milwaukee still would have had to deal with 1.7% and 2.2% grades over St.Paul Pass and the Saddle Mountain crossing respectively, at least until better technology allowed a longer St. Paul Pass tunnel.

But assuming both the Cadotte Pass line and the lower crossing of St. Paul Pass could have been had prior to electrification, what contingency if any did Milwaukee have for the Saddle Mountain crossing from Beverly to Boylston to aleviate the 2.2% of that climb other than electrification?  Did Milwaukee also have a wish list plan for Beverly to Boylston, or was electrification the sole solution offered?  Also, weren't there some grades to deal with east of Lewistown to Winnett if indeed that route had been chosen for the main transcon?  Or would that part of the mainline realignment have come up from Harlowtown and Judith Gap?

I'm wondering how pratical it would have been to operate a 5 mile St Paul Pass tunnel without electrification (although the D&RGW managed steam in the Moffat Tunnel)?

One further advantage of the combined Cadotte/5 mile St Paul tunnel is a dramatic reduction in the number of 10 degree curves.

As for the 2.2% grade between Beverly and Boylston - sounds like a helper district to me. At 18 miles in length, it would have been a piece of cake compared to the Donner Pass line on the Espee. With the existing Coast line electrificatiion, the Milwaukee would have benefitted from max'ing out the capacity of the Doris and Kittitas Substations (i.e. three 2MW MG sets in each). This would have allowed a pair of EF-5's on a WB train to operate in full parallel - and allowed them to approach the 1 hour rating on tractive effort.

[MichaelSol]

Rogers has a very difficult approach from the east. The existing highway there hugs the hillside and is all over the place. The Engineers had surveyed a "high line" over Rogers, for temporary traffic while the tunnel through Cadotte was being built, but the Engineer in charge finally said, forget it, by the time we would get the high line built, we would be done with the tunnel.

[kenneo]

The rights would have needed to be only between Great Falls and Lewistown to go directly East to Melstone.  At he point where this line would have reached the Mussellshell, it would have turned South, going up river to where it would have met the "original" main where it was, itself, turning South to go over the hill to the Yellowstone Valley and Miles City.

Either Cadotte or Rogers Pass would require one of two things ---

LOTS and LOTSSA earthworks to lift the tracks up 200-300 feet above the vallye floor to make a surface crossing, or a tunnel a length of 2.5 to 4.0 miles depending on the survey location and the amount of earthworks required on the East side of each pass.

Looking at Rogers Pass and Cadotte's Pass, I don't see much difference in either.  Rogers is a bit lower, and the tunnel under it would be at 4950 to 5000 feet.  Cadotte's Pass tunnel would seem to be about 5000-5100 feet.  The approaches to each side are nearly the same - in fact, are identical except for the "short streach" over each Pass.  My comprehension, here, has great gloom of cloud.

 

 

[erikem]

What is interesting is how much better the Cadotte Pass crossing would have been compared to Marias Pass. Marias at 5219' and Cadotte at 5,293', but Cadotte at 1% either direction, compared to the 1.8% Marias eastbound grade.

And that's with a relatively short tunnel - with a 3.5 to 4 mile tunnel the maximum elevation could have been dropped to 5,000' and maybe with a slight reduction in grade. For the 8,000' tunnel, the approach from the west was pretty easy, the eastern approach would have involved some serious work. In order to really make this pay off, something would have to be done about the St Paul Pass crossing to get the EB ruling grade to 1% - and also to cut the maximum curvature to 8 degrees or less.

I wonder how much it would have cost to get a good line between Melstone and Great Falls? The existing line from Harlowton to Great Falls was a bit circuitous - one compromise might have been trackage rights on the GN line between Billings and Great Falls.

(Since writing the above paragraph, I saw references to the line from Lewiston to Winnett - and looked it up in the 1928 Rand McNally RR atlas reprint. Looks like about 40 to 45 miles of relatively easy construction to connect Winnett with the main line just northeast of Melstone. Also looks like maybe a few miles saving in distance compared to the existing main line - but considerably less change in elevation.)

Too bad the line didn't get built - looked like it would have been a good one.

[MichaelSol]

What is interesting is how much better the Cadotte Pass crossing would have been compared to Marias Pass. Marias at 5219' and Cadotte at 5,293', but Cadotte at 1% either direction, compared to the 1.8% Marias eastbound grade.

Transcontinentals routinely had the bulk of their traffic eastbound (as much as 2/3) and so GN's Marias Pass crossing was, for the bulk of their traffic, a 1.8% affair. MILW had found this much better crossing at a pretty good price. It certainly looked like a "go."

[kenneo]

Dave

 

Yes, there are two of them Via Winnett, both of them had tracks over them and the rout was (aparently) laid nearly to the Mussellshell.  Here they would have turned South to the already laid main to Miles City.  One of these hills would have been eliminated by a tunnel (relatively short) and the other was close to 1% and wide and flat.

 

My personal opinion is that since the already had rails between Lewiston and Miles City via Judith Gap, that would have probably been the best way.

 

 

[Anonymous]

Cadotte Pass is about five miles north of Rogers Pass on the Continental Divide. It was the historic crossing of the Divide in the area.

The USGS maps show Cadotte Pass to be 2 miles NNW of Rogers Pass (where highway 200 crosses the Continental Divide). It is at the upper right hand corner of the Cadotte Creek 7.5 minute Topo.

Ha! I should have said five "hiking" miles, or at least it seemed like it at 90 degrees, August 12, 2001.

Looks like Cadotte Pass would not have been practical without some sort of tunnel - my eyeballing the topo suggests that a 3 to3.5 mile tunnel would have allowed for crossing the divide with a maximum elevation of 5,000 feet and mild grades. A much shorter tunnel would have been possible with steeper grades and/or a lot of curvature. Coupled with a 5 mile tunnel under St Paul Pass, this would have made for a nice low grade crossing of Montana.

On July 26, 1913, the final survey for the Milwaukee Road’s second crossing of the Continental Divide was completed. From the "Choteau" line to the Big Blackfoot Railway, the new line would be 116.81 miles in length. From Great Falls to Bonner, the distance was 169.7 miles. The total estimated cost was $9,539,507.11. The total curvature of 6,517^o permitted a maximum of 8^o of maximum curvature with a 1% maximum grade eastbound and westbound crossing the Continental Divide at an elevation of 5,293 feet with an 8,200 foot tunnel. [Letter, Powrie to Reeder, August 13, 1913, Great Falls. DSC.]

When I looked at it in 2001, I had the final location survey map with me, as well as a USGS topo map, plus Powrie's notes. There had been discussion about a lower crossing, and it was perfectly feasible from the standpoint of the Pass itself. The tunnel was just commensurately longer but it looked like they were trying to keep the cost of the project under $9 or $10 million.

So the projected line would have run along the Sun River drainage to Augusta, then head due south gaining elevation along the Eastern Front of the Rockies to the proposed eastern portal of a Cadotte tunnel? 

An 8200' tunnel isn't that long for a 1910 era tunnel, unlike the wish list 5 mile tunnel under St. Paul Pass.  So it even with the Cadotte Pass realignment, the Milwaukee still would have had to deal with 1.7% and 2.2% grades over St.Paul Pass and the Saddle Mountain crossing respectively, at least until better technology allowed a longer St. Paul Pass tunnel.

But assuming both the Cadotte Pass line and the lower crossing of St. Paul Pass could have been had prior to electrification, what contingency if any did Milwaukee have for the Saddle Mountain crossing from Beverly to Boylston to aleviate the 2.2% of that climb other than electrification?  Did Milwaukee also have a wish list plan for Beverly to Boylston, or was electrification the sole solution offered?  Also, weren't there some grades to deal with east of Lewistown to Winnett if indeed that route had been chosen for the main transcon?  Or would that part of the mainline realignment have come up from Harlowtown and Judith Gap?

[MichaelSol]

Cadotte Pass is about five miles north of Rogers Pass on the Continental Divide. It was the historic crossing of the Divide in the area.

The USGS maps show Cadotte Pass to be 2 miles NNW of Rogers Pass (where highway 200 crosses the Continental Divide). It is at the upper right hand corner of the Cadotte Creek 7.5 minute Topo.

Ha! I should have said five "hiking" miles, or at least it seemed like it at 90 degrees, August 12, 2001.

Looks like Cadotte Pass would not have been practical without some sort of tunnel - my eyeballing the topo suggests that a 3 to3.5 mile tunnel would have allowed for crossing the divide with a maximum elevation of 5,000 feet and mild grades. A much shorter tunnel would have been possible with steeper grades and/or a lot of curvature. Coupled with a 5 mile tunnel under St Paul Pass, this would have made for a nice low grade crossing of Montana.

On July 26, 1913, the final survey for the Milwaukee Road’s second crossing of the Continental Divide was completed. From the "Choteau" line to the Big Blackfoot Railway, the new line would be 116.81 miles in length. From Great Falls to Bonner, the distance was 169.7 miles. The total estimated cost was $9,539,507.11. The total curvature of 6,517^o permitted a maximum of 8^o of maximum curvature with a 1% maximum grade eastbound and westbound crossing the Continental Divide at an elevation of 5,293 feet with an 8,200 foot tunnel. [Letter, Powrie to Reeder, August 13, 1913, Great Falls. DSC.]

When I looked at it in 2001, I had the final location survey map with me, as well as a USGS topo map, plus Powrie's notes. There had been discussion about a lower crossing, and it was perfectly feasible from the standpoint of the Pass itself. The tunnel was just commensurately longer but it looked like they were trying to keep the cost of the project under $9 or $10 million.

[Anonymous]

Cadotte Pass is about five miles north of Rogers Pass on the Continental Divide. It was the historic crossing of the Divide in the area. The old Pacific Railroad surveys all included it as a probable crossing and when one of the surveyors, Isaac Stevens, came back later as Governor of the Washington Territory, he proclaimed the creation of the Washington Territory as he stood on its eastern boundary and looked west from Cadotte Pass.

The USGS maps show Cadotte Pass to be 2 miles NNW of Rogers Pass (where highway 200 crosses the Continental Divide). It is at the upper right hand corner of the Cadotte Creek 7.5 minute Topo.

Looks like Cadotte Pass would not have been practical without some sort of tunnel - my eyeballing the topo suggests that a 3 to3.5 mile tunnel would have allowed for crossing the divide with a maximum elevation of 5,000 feet and mild grades. A much shorter tunnel would have been possible with steeper grades and/or a lot of curvature. Coupled with a 5 mile tunnel under St Paul Pass, this would have made for a nice low grade crossing of Montana.

Would have been interesting to know if the Milwaukee was planning to electrify the Cadotte Pass line if it had been built - and a long tunnel under the pass would have been easier with electricity rather than steam. A related question is whether it would have made sense to extend the electrification on the line between Melstone and Harlowton - perhaps extending it to the division point of Miles City?

An interesting blurb from "Montana Discovery Foundation":

http://www.montanadiscoveryfoundation.org/alicecreek.html

"Governor Stevens favored the proposed railroad route that passed though the Blackfoot Valley. In determining whether the rails should cross over Cadotte's or Lewis and Clark Pass, Stevens noted that Lewis and Clark Pass would require the construction of an underground tunnel that would extend only 2.5 miles, whereas the Cadotte Pass route would require a tunnel 4.25 miles in length."

Perhaps the Milwaukee's collective thought was that the Cadotte route would be straighter, e.g. more inline with the Blackfoot River to the west and the Dearborn River to the east.  My recollection from the locked Milwaukee thread was that a 2 mile tunnel under Cadotte was envisioned.  But what I am wondering about is if the Augusta branch farther north was supposed to be the eastern approach, or if the Milwaukee was considering a new line from Great Falls up the Missouri to the confluence of the Dearborn River, then up the valley of the Dearborn to Cadotte?