Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Milwaukee Road history - Wikipedia version

Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="MichaelSol"][quote user="greyhounds"][quote user="MichaelSol"][quote user="greyhounds"][quote user="MichaelSol"] The PCE had a minimum 19'6" clearance throughout, with standard catenary in place. Catenary in the tunnels used up between 18" and 30" of additional clearance.The line handled 93' autoracks on a daily basis without incident on the existing curvature.[/quote]Two 9' 6" containers stacked in a well stand 20' 2" above the rail.  So the Milwaukee's PCE, with the wire in place, would have been shut out of the container traffic without some major work.[/quote]The wire was removed in 1974.[/quote] Yes, but you've always said it should have been kept, upgraded and expanded to bridge the "gap" between the two electrfied sections.  You've also maintained that the PCE should have been rehabed and retained.If those two things would have happened we would have had quite a useless railroad, rebuilt at taxpayer expense, when double stack came along.[/quote]The original comment was this:<table border="0"><tbody><tr><td>billbtrain wrote:</td></tr><tr><td><table border="0"><tbody><tr><td>I just happened to be thinking about double stacks this morning.Thinking about what would have to be done on the PCE to allow sufficient clearance amounting to say 18'.I'm refering to the PCE as it was in 1979,without the electrification.</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>Hopefully I answered that specific question, there was plenty of clearance. I guess you want to argue something different. No surprises. The cost of raising the catenary 12" inside the tunnels was negligible, if that is the condition you wish to impose. There was plenty of room to do so, and plenty of room for double stacks. And I am sure it could have been done at private expense. I'd guess the seven line crews could have done it in about four week's time, at a total cost of just under $100,000. Probably wouldn't sink the ship.[/quote]And it should be pointed out that if BNSF opted to re-electrify the Stevens Pass line, the same conditions would apply.  Only difference is that BNSF would get the State of Washington's taxpayers to fund it![:-,]
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag