beaulieu wrote: futuremodal wrote: I would also take issue with the notion that the first railroad through a certain area always took the best route, thus any second and third-comers would have to do with lesser routes of longer mileage and/or harsher profiles. I look at the Northern Pacific - first northern transcon, yet by consensus the worst alignment of the three northern tier lines. GN was second in, and had a better alignnment across Montana, yet it's Idaho and Washington divisions were initially worse than NP's. Milwaukee was last in, and probably had a better Montana route than NP but worse than GN's. Yet, Milwaukee managed the best crossing of the State of Washington.So let's look at a Rock Island as the second southern transcon after SP. Across New Mexico and on into Arizona, it seems to be a wash - the EP&SW and EP&NE lines aren't all that different from the original SP route, with some higher elevations to cross and slightly longer mileate but sometimes gentler grades. Remember, RI was coming out of Chicago, so SP would've had to find another line to forward their Chicago traffic. So let's call it even for the two lines between Chicago and Tuscon.Now, from Tuscon to the LA basin and the Central Valley - SP's route seems to be superior to the SF and UP lines over Cajon, and the only other shortline active at the time that could have been utilized via takeover for RI would've been the SD&AE. As S Hadid points out, no one in their right mind would have wanted to use that road as a transcon connection. So does that necessarily leave RI out of a decent route to get to LA/CV? Was there room for two railroads across San Gorgonio Pass? If RI had made it to LA, which route was available to get from there to the Central Valley and/or San Fransisco?Cut the NP some slack, they were completed by Henry Villard to a connection with his OWR&N at Pasco. Once Mr. Villard's Empire broke up they had to get to the Pacific Coast somehow, as J.J. Hill's GN was fast approaching, and UP through the OSL now reached the Pacific at Portland. I don't think they could afford the bridging like the MILW did down the west slope of Snoqualamie, they were very weak financially at that point.
futuremodal wrote: I would also take issue with the notion that the first railroad through a certain area always took the best route, thus any second and third-comers would have to do with lesser routes of longer mileage and/or harsher profiles. I look at the Northern Pacific - first northern transcon, yet by consensus the worst alignment of the three northern tier lines. GN was second in, and had a better alignnment across Montana, yet it's Idaho and Washington divisions were initially worse than NP's. Milwaukee was last in, and probably had a better Montana route than NP but worse than GN's. Yet, Milwaukee managed the best crossing of the State of Washington.So let's look at a Rock Island as the second southern transcon after SP. Across New Mexico and on into Arizona, it seems to be a wash - the EP&SW and EP&NE lines aren't all that different from the original SP route, with some higher elevations to cross and slightly longer mileate but sometimes gentler grades. Remember, RI was coming out of Chicago, so SP would've had to find another line to forward their Chicago traffic. So let's call it even for the two lines between Chicago and Tuscon.Now, from Tuscon to the LA basin and the Central Valley - SP's route seems to be superior to the SF and UP lines over Cajon, and the only other shortline active at the time that could have been utilized via takeover for RI would've been the SD&AE. As S Hadid points out, no one in their right mind would have wanted to use that road as a transcon connection. So does that necessarily leave RI out of a decent route to get to LA/CV? Was there room for two railroads across San Gorgonio Pass? If RI had made it to LA, which route was available to get from there to the Central Valley and/or San Fransisco?
I would also take issue with the notion that the first railroad through a certain area always took the best route, thus any second and third-comers would have to do with lesser routes of longer mileage and/or harsher profiles. I look at the Northern Pacific - first northern transcon, yet by consensus the worst alignment of the three northern tier lines. GN was second in, and had a better alignnment across Montana, yet it's Idaho and Washington divisions were initially worse than NP's. Milwaukee was last in, and probably had a better Montana route than NP but worse than GN's. Yet, Milwaukee managed the best crossing of the State of Washington.
So let's look at a Rock Island as the second southern transcon after SP. Across New Mexico and on into Arizona, it seems to be a wash - the EP&SW and EP&NE lines aren't all that different from the original SP route, with some higher elevations to cross and slightly longer mileate but sometimes gentler grades. Remember, RI was coming out of Chicago, so SP would've had to find another line to forward their Chicago traffic. So let's call it even for the two lines between Chicago and Tuscon.
Now, from Tuscon to the LA basin and the Central Valley - SP's route seems to be superior to the SF and UP lines over Cajon, and the only other shortline active at the time that could have been utilized via takeover for RI would've been the SD&AE. As S Hadid points out, no one in their right mind would have wanted to use that road as a transcon connection. So does that necessarily leave RI out of a decent route to get to LA/CV? Was there room for two railroads across San Gorgonio Pass? If RI had made it to LA, which route was available to get from there to the Central Valley and/or San Fransisco?
Cut the NP some slack, they were completed by Henry Villard to a connection with his OWR&N at Pasco. Once Mr. Villard's Empire broke up they had to get to the Pacific Coast somehow, as J.J. Hill's GN was fast approaching, and UP through the OSL now reached the Pacific at Portland. I don't think they could afford the bridging like the MILW did down the west slope of Snoqualamie, they were very weak financially at that point.
The point isn't to berate the NP so much as to point out that the first railroad into a certain area doesn't necessarily take the best route, thus allowing a second or third railroad to take the better route.
BTW - NP could've built on the North Bank of the Columbia when the Villard connection was yanked. And GN certainly could have afforded the bridging of the Snoqualmie Pass route. Why those two roads chose two of the most difficult railroad crossings of the Cascades is still something to ponder.
What I am getting at is this idea that a hypothetical RI transcon wouldn't necessarily have had to choose a lesser route than SP into the LA Basin or to the Central Valley. The geology of Southern California is not as constrained as that of the Central Corridor Sierra crossings.
futuremodal wrote:I would also take issue with the notion that the first railroad through a certain area always took the best route, thus any second and third-comers would have to do with lesser routes of longer mileage and/or harsher profiles. I look at the Northern Pacific - first northern transcon, yet by consensus the worst alignment of the three northern tier lines. GN was second in, and had a better alignnment across Montana, yet it's Idaho and Washington divisions were initially worse than NP's. Milwaukee was last in, and probably had a better Montana route than NP but worse than GN's. Yet, Milwaukee managed the best crossing of the State of Washington.So let's look at a Rock Island as the second southern transcon after SP. Across New Mexico and on into Arizona, it seems to be a wash - the EP&SW and EP&NE lines aren't all that different from the original SP route, with some higher elevations to cross and slightly longer mileate but sometimes gentler grades. Remember, RI was coming out of Chicago, so SP would've had to find another line to forward their Chicago traffic. So let's call it even for the two lines between Chicago and Tuscon.Now, from Tuscon to the LA basin and the Central Valley - SP's route seems to be superior to the SF and UP lines over Cajon, and the only other shortline active at the time that could have been utilized via takeover for RI would've been the SD&AE. As S Hadid points out, no one in their right mind would have wanted to use that road as a transcon connection. So does that necessarily leave RI out of a decent route to get to LA/CV? Was there room for two railroads across San Gorgonio Pass? If RI had made it to LA, which route was available to get from there to the Central Valley and/or San Fransisco?
Kevin C. Smith wrote: RI+MKT/MP: I don't know if the Katy would add that much value to the RI's franchise. It wasn't that big a system and was roughly parallel to the existing RI lines to Texas. The MP strikes me as a tail wagging the dog. If one had the RI & MP, would one sell the former and keep the latter? Result: an MP(not RI)-RG-WP transcon.
RI+MKT/MP: I don't know if the Katy would add that much value to the RI's franchise. It wasn't that big a system and was roughly parallel to the existing RI lines to Texas. The MP strikes me as a tail wagging the dog. If one had the RI & MP, would one sell the former and keep the latter? Result: an MP(not RI)-RG-WP transcon.
That was already the idea of the Gould interests when the WP was built. The main thing it did was put the Rio Grande in bankruptcy.
snagletooth wrote:Well, here's a stretch of an idea. What about RI+DRGW+WP, and maybe MP or MKT.
Off the top of my head (probably more on it than in it...), my guesses would be:
RI Omaha-Denver: I seem to remember an article in TRAINS some time back that suggested the Denver main was a neglected part of that neglected system. Of course, timing is everything. 1938-I'd think OK. 1958-Was it still adequte? 1978-Anything worth saving?
D&RGW: Too many mountains, though as our S. Hadid has been pointing out elsewhere, local mineral traffic counted for more than bridge traffic for a long time. That might've kept the RG part of this suggested transcon economically viable.
WP: Again, a tip o' the hat to S...would the Rock Island+Rio Grande have had the traffic and resources to keep the WP open after major washouts in the Feather River canyon? (I recall reports of serious damage from flooding not too many years after the UP bought it. The reporter wondered if the WP would have survived had it not been part of the UP.)
1435mm wrote: Well-engineered superior route = Milwaukee is an opinion I do not agree with. I don't hold any grudge against people whose opinion differs with my own, however.
Well-engineered superior route = Milwaukee is an opinion I do not agree with. I don't hold any grudge against people whose opinion differs with my own, however.
Depends on what you're comparing it with. Just GN or GN + SP&S? Milwaukee vs NP? vs UP? vs CP?
I also question some choices of SF/UP via Cajon Pass vs the better SP route into the LA basin via San Gorgonio (?) Pass, yet SF seemed to outperform SP, then and now. But who's counting, right?
But regardless of that question, the EP&SW was the second-choice location; SP took the best one, as the first-on-the-scene railroad usually does. Excess circuity matters, and most of the circuitous routes are gone now -- too many crew starts, too many locomotive-miles, too much per diem, too many train-miles for the revenue.
There's a common belief I see in this forum that traffic that moves long distances (1,000 miles or better) is the only traffic that matters. Today that more and more true but prior to the 1960s long-distance traffic was minor in the business of a railroad. The average lumber haul by rail circa 1955 was 125 miles! The preponderance of coal moves nationwide in the 1950s were under 300 miles. Railroads without heavy and consistent local traffic and short-haul traffic (originating and terminating on-line) were perennial losers. Take a look at the traffic sources of any western railroad at any given date you wish prior to 1970 and it's not at all mysterious which ones were healthy and which were failing.
The EP&SW despite its copper smelter and mine traffic was extremely thin on local traffic after especially after the smelters converted from coal to fuel oil, and since the transcon traffic that was being offered was substantially less than the capacity of the Sunset Route, and the costs and service of the Sunset Route superior to the EP&SW, there was absolutely no way the EP&SW could compete with SP except for the occasional leftovers the SP didn't want. That's why Phelps-Dodge sold it to SP -- it was a loser!
But even if the Rock Island had purchased all this stuff it still would have had to build new paralleling the SP from Tucson 600 miles to Los Angeles, and built into the Central Valley probably on its own route, another 300 miles, an expense circa 1906 of about $1.5 billion for a properly equipped, properly engineered railroad, which would have been inferior to the SP in every regard. Worse, since the customers had already invested in plant along SP and Santa Fe, this new road would have had to look for new customers or offer better service (rates being regulated). Since its route was longer, it couldn't do that. It's a vicious circle.
Assuming any bondholders could be found who wanted to take that kind of risk, plus compete with Harriman and Santa Fe, they'd have soon been relieved of their money. David Moffat tried that fool's errand, found no suckers, and not unsurprisingly failed.
S. Hadid
1435mm wrote: futuremodal wrote: Even if the Rock had managed to get a hold of the EPSW and the EPNE, they still needed a way to reach the coast. How far east did the San Diego & Eastern run? And once they did get to the coast, they still would need to access the Central Valley, since that's where all the rail traffic originated.Wouldn't the RI have been better off if they'd focused on the Central Corridor instead of the Southwest?Rock Island+EP&NE+EP&SW+SD&AE ... what a horrible route that would have been. SP would have waited for it to die and bought what it wanted, just as it actually did. Victrola1: "Milwaukee Road of the Southwest?" Yes.
futuremodal wrote: Even if the Rock had managed to get a hold of the EPSW and the EPNE, they still needed a way to reach the coast. How far east did the San Diego & Eastern run? And once they did get to the coast, they still would need to access the Central Valley, since that's where all the rail traffic originated.Wouldn't the RI have been better off if they'd focused on the Central Corridor instead of the Southwest?
Even if the Rock had managed to get a hold of the EPSW and the EPNE, they still needed a way to reach the coast. How far east did the San Diego & Eastern run?
And once they did get to the coast, they still would need to access the Central Valley, since that's where all the rail traffic originated.
Wouldn't the RI have been better off if they'd focused on the Central Corridor instead of the Southwest?
Rock Island+EP&NE+EP&SW+SD&AE ... what a horrible route that would have been. SP would have waited for it to die and bought what it wanted, just as it actually did.
Victrola1: "Milwaukee Road of the Southwest?" Yes.
Wait a minute, now.....
First you say a RI+EP&NE+EP&SW+SD&AE would have been a horrible route, then you say such a route would have been a "Milwaukee Road of the Southwest" implying a well engineered superior route. Which is it?
BTW - only the inclusion of the SD&AE would have made a southern transcon RI a horrible route. The profile maps of the EP&NE and the EP&SW show nice profiles with easy grades, albeit a few miles longer than the parallel SP route (and par for the course for RI).
The question is, how would a transcon RI have made it from Tuscon to the coast and the Central Valley traffic base without inflicting further economic injury on itself?
futuremodal wrote:Even if the Rock had managed to get a hold of the EPSW and the EPNE, they still needed a way to reach the coast. How far east did the San Diego & Eastern run? And once they did get to the coast, they still would need to access the Central Valley, since that's where all the rail traffic originated.Wouldn't the RI have been better off if they'd focused on the Central Corridor instead of the Southwest?
Rock Island's chance was to seek merger with equals and abandon ruthlessly, like C&NW did with M&StL and CGW. But it didn't have a Ben Heineman.
futuremodal wrote: beaulieu wrote: Victrola1 wrote: What if the Rock had headed west from Santa Rosa, NM to the Los Angeles basin before WWI? Would it have ended up as the "Milwaukee Road of the Southwest" when hell to pay came due in the 1970's? It would have been interesting if they had bought the two Phelps-Dodge copper roads, the El Paso & Southwestern, and the El Paso & Northeastern. This would have taken them from Santa Rosa, NM all the way west to Tucson, AZ. Within striking distance of Los Angeles.What were the routes of the El Paso & Southwestern and the El Paso & Northeastern (e.g. if I was to trace the routes with a highway atlas)? As Phelps-Dodge owned roads, were they free of silent control of the SP and/or SF?Also, what would have been the potential traffic base for such a Rock Island "Milwaukee Southwest" PCE, and would it have amounted to as much as what the Pacific Northwest offered the Milwaukee?
beaulieu wrote: Victrola1 wrote: What if the Rock had headed west from Santa Rosa, NM to the Los Angeles basin before WWI? Would it have ended up as the "Milwaukee Road of the Southwest" when hell to pay came due in the 1970's? It would have been interesting if they had bought the two Phelps-Dodge copper roads, the El Paso & Southwestern, and the El Paso & Northeastern. This would have taken them from Santa Rosa, NM all the way west to Tucson, AZ. Within striking distance of Los Angeles.
Victrola1 wrote: What if the Rock had headed west from Santa Rosa, NM to the Los Angeles basin before WWI? Would it have ended up as the "Milwaukee Road of the Southwest" when hell to pay came due in the 1970's?
What if the Rock had headed west from Santa Rosa, NM to the Los Angeles basin before WWI? Would it have ended up as the "Milwaukee Road of the Southwest" when hell to pay came due in the 1970's?
It would have been interesting if they had bought the two Phelps-Dodge copper roads, the El Paso & Southwestern, and the El Paso & Northeastern. This would have taken them from Santa Rosa, NM all the way west to Tucson, AZ. Within striking distance of Los Angeles.
What were the routes of the El Paso & Southwestern and the El Paso & Northeastern (e.g. if I was to trace the routes with a highway atlas)? As Phelps-Dodge owned roads, were they free of silent control of the SP and/or SF?
Also, what would have been the potential traffic base for such a Rock Island "Milwaukee Southwest" PCE, and would it have amounted to as much as what the Pacific Northwest offered the Milwaukee?
The El Paso & Northeastern is the current UP route from El Paso to Santa Rosa, NM. The El Paso & Southwestern is generally south of the Sunset Route in Arizona and New Mexico. The first few miles west of El Paso are in use as the south main by UP. From Tucson east to Mescal, AZ it is close to the original SP main sometimes on the north, more often to the south, and used as the second main track on the Sunset Route. Between Mescal, AZ and a point a few miles west of El Paso is a gone. The line is near the Mexican border through most of New Mexico.
futuremodal wrote: beaulieu wrote: Victrola1 wrote: What if the Rock had headed west from Santa Rosa, NM to the Los Angeles basin before WWI? Would it have ended up as the "Milwaukee Road of the Southwest" when hell to pay came due in the 1970's? It would have been interesting if they had bought the two Phelps-Dodge copper roads, the El Paso & Southwestern, and the El Paso & Northeastern. This would have taken them from Santa Rosa, NM all the way west to Tucson, AZ. Within striking distance of Los Angeles.What were the routes of the El Paso & Southwestern and the El Paso & Northeastern (e.g. if I was to trace the routes with a highway atlas)? As Phelps-Dodge owned roads, were they free of silent control of the SP and/or SF?
Nevermind. I found a few links regarding the El Paso & Southwestern and the El Paso & Northeastern.
http://home.swbell.net/lwsumner/history.htm (El Paso & Southwestern)
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/EE/eqe6.html (El Paso & Northeastern)
I guess the El Paso & Northeastern is what eventually became the SSW from El Paso north-northeast to Santa Rosa and the Rock Island. This sale to the SP took place in the 1920's, so yes the road would have been available for purchase ( or overhead rights) by RI nee WWI.
The El Paso and Southwestern ran straight west from El Paso along the New Mexico/Mexico border, basically following the current paths of NM Highway 9 and US Highway 80 to Douglas Arizona and on to Tuscon. This railroad eventually became the "southline" of the SP, purchased for around $64 million in 1924, and was later abandoned when SP retrenched during the 1960's. (Hmmmmm, wouldn't UP like that line back for some directional running between Tuscon and El Paso right now!. The EPSW even had gentler grades over the Continental Divide than did the SP!)
What strikes me is how relatively cheaply the RI (or anyone else during that period) could have purchased around 600 miles of mainline to get within a stone's throw of LA or San Diego - at least compared to what it cost the Milwaukee to build the PCE!
Victrola1 wrote:What if the Rock had headed west from Santa Rosa, NM to the Los Angeles basin before WWI? Would it have ended up as the "Milwaukee Road of the Southwest" when hell to pay came due in the 1970's?
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote:It would have taken an incredibly clear crystal ball for management to foresee deregulation and the Rock Island was in bankruptcy proceedings, anyway. The secured creditors had a lot of say in Rock Island's future and it would appear that none of them could foresee dereg, either. In such a situation, liquidation rather than re-organization may have been inevitable.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
When your biggest shipper of manufactured goods was Maytag in Newton, IA it speaks loudly on how narrow your originating traffic base was. Handling agricultural commodities and overhead traffic is not an ideal mix for stability.
How much of the Rock is still in use shows there was potential to survive. Like the CB&Q which went everywhere the Rock did, only shorter, survival depended on being part of a larger system. The iceberg called the ICC had titantic consequences in that respect.
The Rock's post WWII management sunk a lot of money and hope into the Memphis, Golden State connection. To my knowledge, it did not survive intact. With current congestion between southern California and the Southeastern states, it seems a vindication of their vision. The Rock's management saw too far ahead.
After the Reid Moore Syndicate swindle of the early 20th century, the Rock became a perpetual begger. Management was bogged down with hand to mouth survival. Starving men dream of cake. It too often takes their mind off how to obtain enough bread to qualify for dessert.
Really adds some perspective to the final chapter of the hapless Rock....and perhaps a minority view..it could have survived as a profitable road...It brings to mind Citizen Kane...this time researcher from a university tracking down the backstory...sits down with one of the most important witnesses at the end...Rosebud and The Rock.
http://faculty.simpson.edu/RITS/www/histories/JWIInterview/JWIInterview.html
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.