nordique72 wrote: As for the statements Noah made in regards to CNW's abandonment practices- there is truth to the accusations, but most were in relation to light density, redundant branch lines in Iowa that barely turned a profit in the Pre-Staggers railroad age. One famous case is the CNW's secondary line west from Eagle Grove to Onawa, IA- there was a lot of bad blood when CNW pulled the plug on that line. Many of the stories he relates in his post come out of the battle CNW fought with a couple shippers to have this line abandoned. As for main line abandonments- CNW was not a foolish railroad, if they could improve their route to a certain city by trackage rights, or haulage while abandoning their own redundant line and retaining profit, they did it. The Duluth lines being excellent examples (trackage rights on the Skally saved trains almost 200 miles of excessive route milage via the New Richmond Sub., and the combination of lines north of Chippewa Falls proved beneficial for both CNW and WC down the road.) The main reason CNW survived as long as it did was their ability to cut redundant mileage and money siphoning traffic, while at the same time winning overhead long haul traffic from UP (and later on coal traffic from the WRPI.)
As for the statements Noah made in regards to CNW's abandonment practices- there is truth to the accusations, but most were in relation to light density, redundant branch lines in Iowa that barely turned a profit in the Pre-Staggers railroad age. One famous case is the CNW's secondary line west from Eagle Grove to Onawa, IA- there was a lot of bad blood when CNW pulled the plug on that line. Many of the stories he relates in his post come out of the battle CNW fought with a couple shippers to have this line abandoned. As for main line abandonments- CNW was not a foolish railroad, if they could improve their route to a certain city by trackage rights, or haulage while abandoning their own redundant line and retaining profit, they did it. The Duluth lines being excellent examples (trackage rights on the Skally saved trains almost 200 miles of excessive route milage via the New Richmond Sub., and the combination of lines north of Chippewa Falls proved beneficial for both CNW and WC down the road.) The main reason CNW survived as long as it did was their ability to cut redundant mileage and money siphoning traffic, while at the same time winning overhead long haul traffic from UP (and later on coal traffic from the WRPI.)
This didn't only happen with the CNW's routes in Iowa though, there were lines in other places that were given this same treatment too. Portions of the CNW's Original "Route of the 400" through Wisconsin was abondoned this way, although admittedly by the time it was that was a duplicate route to the Adams line anyway.
I didn't mean to imply that this was a bad practice the CNW had through either, in many cases it was a good idea. I'll refer back to the Line North of Madison. It was a duplicate route that had really no significance to the CNW except for the Rock Quarry in Rock Springs. So what did they do, the smart thing. They got rid off all of the extra trackage up to the quarry. Saves them a heck of a lot of money in maintenance, and they can now concentrate that money on the through route they wanted to keep, the Adams line.
I had been wondering since Max mentioned it why the CN really switched their service. Can't blame the BN for simply wanting to compete with the CNW, and I thank you for relating the real story.
Noah
Noah,
When I was speaking of CNW abandonements I was speaking of all CNW's light density branch lines in the Midwest (re: "most")- the main example I used was the line from Eagle Grove-Onawa, which was the focus of a university study in the 1970s on rail abandonment. While I do not deny CNW indeed in some cases "submarined" service on certain lines- it was for the health of the railroad. Consider in the 1970s railroads were held captive by Pre-Staggers act rates, in addition to that- the ICC was a pompous overzealous government board that made life miserable for railroads seeking to abandon these lines that hadn't turned a profit in 20 years. Railroads when applying had to provide conclusive "proof" that the line was unprofitable, and would continue to lose money- not an easy task when the ICC was friendly to the shippers. Many times a railroad would have to apply several times and do some major foot kissing just to get the petition granted.
CNW in no way "submarined" service on the Reedsburg Sub- and to compare that line's abandonment with those of the branches in the Midwest is like comparing apples and oranges. I can not think of any part of former "400" territory that was abandoned in this way. CNW made a good number of enemies with their abandonments of certain lines in the 1970s, but if you consider the economics and the regulatory law in place at the time, it is not as calculated and sinister as some would have you believe. CNW was seen as the big evil railroad- mostly in Iowa, when they acquired the CGW, MSTL, DMCI and FDDMS in the 60s- the subsequent collapse of the Rock and the Milwaukee's exit from the majority of the state didn't help either (CNW of course snapped up a lot of ex-RI and MILW branches after that.) Shippers saw their sweetheart ICC rates disappearing like chaff in the wind when CNW began consolidating midwestern routes, then Staggers was passed and really sealed the deal. Abandonments suddenly became a lot less tedious for railroads to enact, CNW used this to their advantage. Take a look at the statistics and you'll see- it was not as widespread as some may have you believe (re: print media reports on abandonments in affected cities were always good at demonizing CNW). It's the same thing as CN dumping the SD45s- railfans like the SD45 for it's unique look, to the CN it's waste of money on rails, CN begins deadlining them and railfans begin to get upset... it's just like when the railroads switched from steam to diesel. It's all economics.
Your friendly neighborhood CNW fan.
Lord Atmo wrote:yes, but tons of steam locomotives have been preserved. how many WC SD45s are being preserved? none. if CN donated one, not as many railfans would be outraged. i know i wouldnt.
Don't hold your breath waiting. If you want to see a preserved SD45, you're limited to the former GN's Hustle Muscle #400 or the former SP's #8800.
Rob
I would hardly say that a good proportion of steam locomotives are preserved- out of the entire Milwaukee Road fleet of steamers, I can think of 3 that escaped the torch. Same for CNW steam- the number is in the single digits for preservation. It may seem like "tons" were saved because they are treated with such a high profile if they escaped the torch, but when compared to the actual amount saved vs. scrapped it's more like a ripple in the water.
I'll will reiterate what others have said in regards to saving a WC SD45- I'm not sure there's much historical interest in saving one. If there was, some sort of grassroots effort would have already been put in motion to purchase one or have one donated- it's pretty easy to sit around and complain about how all them are being jettisoned- but the real question is, is there a broad interest in seeing one preserved? CN isn't going to just up and donate one if no museum wants to house it, you gotta have a place to put it and someone who wants it before any donating can be done... once again, no interest- no preservation.
At least there are two SD45s preserved. So far no F45s have been saved,and only one is still in service.Some railroad museum should contact MRL now about aquiring this unit upon its retirement.When this engine is gone it will be too late!
10000 feet and no dynamics? Today is going to be a good day ...
Lord Atmo wrote:there's an ex SP SD45 preserved? this is news to me. anyone got pics?
Try here:
http://www.theunionstation.org/museums/usrrmuseum/usrrmuseum6.html
It's average because it's an EMD locomotive that is really no different than your SD40's, SD40-2s or the SD40u's and SD40-3's.
OOOO its got a flare on the body... is that what makes you drool over it?
They are fuel hogs, they are junk units for crews to ride it and require excess maintenace. Its just like a steam locomotive .... outdated .... embrace the GEVO's and the SD70M-2's and ACe's cause thats whats going to be out there in large quantities.
Heck those units are not even allowed to lead here in Canada .. and if one does it's a rare occasion.
CN units are not junk.
Any standard cab unit is worse to ride in than a wide cab. The SD50F's and SD60f's are huge shakers and are very loud with the horn right on the conductors side.
CN units have a lot more crew economies to offer like fridges, microwaves, hotplates and nice toilet compartments ... and a lot of the seats are quite comfy, even the middle seats, with the reclining and all .... but im sure thats with most.
There are lots of rarities on the rails these days but the fact is CN is a company and they are going to scrap units that are not feasable to them. CN runs their trains with as few units as possible and get rid of the surplus.
I am sorry if I've ticked everyone off but its just hilarious to see people all upset over a locomotive being scrapped.
As for the donation .. Hunter is not going to give something away ... his company makes money, he really isn't out to give things away. All I am saying is you need to realize it's a locomotive, a machine. And machines get old and need to be made into something new.