What happen to Milwaukee Road?

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
Michael, please read what I wrote. I wrote "the MILW". MILW was the reporting mark for the railroad and that's what anyone with common sense would know I was writing about.

Of course, everyone knows a reporting mark is the same thing as a corporate entity. That's why reporting marks are registered in Delaware, Wisconsin, Illinois, or other states. Right? Because reporting marks are "corporate entities." The AAR has long been the proper registry for "corporate entities" as everyone well knows that has anything to do with railroading.

I very much enjoyed the Santa Fe's corporate entity 2005 Annual Report, based entirely on the continued existence of its registered reporting marks which is aways how profit and loss is reported for railroad corporate entities -- by reporting mark.

The MILW reporting mark continues to be registered and used. So your original statement is still completely haywire no matter how you try and spin it.

Well, I've explained it. If you don't understand it, that's your problem.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
If you read what I said, you'll understand that the electric locomotives used on the PCE had nothing but scap value without the PCE. They couldn't be sold for operation to another railroad.

Of course, overlooking nearly 50,000 miles of 3 kv Electrification, including two other railroads that specifically ran Joes -- including one in Chicago -- and presupposing, with zero knowledge, that they would not want a machine proven superior to just about anything else on the rails.

The gentleman doesn't know the difference between a reporting mark and a "corporate entity" and now demonstrates that he knows nothing about electrification. Proceed accordingly.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol
overlooking nearly 50,000 miles of 3 kv Electrification, including two other railroads that specifically ran Joes -- including one in Chicago -- and presupposing, with zero knowledge, that they would not want a machine proven superior to just about anything else on the rails.

Did another railroad buy the Little Joes?

[Randy Stahl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
If you read what I said, you'll understand that the electric locomotives used on the PCE had nothing but scap value without the PCE. They couldn't be sold for operation to another railroad.

Of course, overlooking nearly 50,000 miles of 3 kv Electrification, including two other railroads that specifically ran Joes -- including one in Chicago -- and presupposing, with zero knowledge, that they would not want a machine proven superior to just about anything else on the rails.

The gentleman doesn't know the difference between a reporting mark and a "corporate entity" and now demonstrates that he knows nothing about electrification. Proceed accordingly.

The one in Chicago was/is 1500 volt. I will say that if they were still around I have a market for them .

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
The MILW as a corporate entity ... had absolutely no future.

QUOTE: ]Originally posted by greyhounds
I wrote "the MILW". MILW was the reporting mark for the railroad and that's what anyone with common sense would know I was writing about.

And the reporting mark is still in use.

Which clearly means the reporting mark had no future ....

Common sense!!??!!

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Randy StahlThe one in Chicago was/is 1500 volt. I will say that if they were still around I have a market for them .

Yes, they bought three of the original Joes, modified and ran them at 1500 volts.

[Randy Stahl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol
overlooking nearly 50,000 miles of 3 kv Electrification, including two other railroads that specifically ran Joes -- including one in Chicago -- and presupposing, with zero knowledge, that they would not want a machine proven superior to just about anything else on the rails.

Did another railroad buy the Little Joes?

The Chicago South Shore & South Bend

[Randy Stahl]

The Milw never made good on it's debt stemming from the Indiana coal purchases, never paid for the Puget sound extension ..... Perhaps they should have paid thier bills before voting themselves multimillion dollar Christmas bonuses !!

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Randy Stahl

The Milw never made good on it's debt stemming from the Indiana coal purchases, never paid for the Puget sound extension .....

Well, as Wm Rockefeller paid for it mostly out of his own pocket, I'm not sure on the 7% dividends paid for many years thereafter.

The Engineer's Report of 1925 showed that Milwaukee generated a 0.6% return on its investment prior to that date, 1906-1924, slightly above the average return on investment made during that same period by GN, NP, MILW, CNW and CBQ.

That the PCE more than contributed to that was shown by a National City Bank study, one of Milwaukee's bankers, in 1917 which showed that the PCE, at only 24% of the traffic, generated 45% of the net profit of the entire system.

[Randy Stahl]

There is no doubt in my mind that the Milwaukee's survival was dependant on the PCE. The losses of traffic elsewhere made the PCE the ONLY hope for the Milwaukee's future. As time has shown us now , the remaining "NEW" Milwaukee is not a viable railroad stand alone. The only way to make money is to haul trains long distances.

You may recall that in 1925 the Milwaukee entered bankrupcy as a result of debt incurred from building the PCE and other purchases in the west and midwest .
The railroad was in debt up to it's eyeballs, sadly they lost the only way to generate cash .

You must even remember that about the only way we could fund capital programs was through 4R loans and the government wasn't going to sink a dime into the PCE .

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

Greyhounds - I must respectfully disagree. I think the Milwaukee had an incredible future, but without management to identify this you are pretty much done for. After the BN merger in 1970 the Milwuakee opened up 11 or 12 new gateways out west - potential traffic generating gateways. The PCE was one of the few areas of the railroad that was making any money. .

Well, I respectfully disagree with your repectful disagreement.

1) You can't have an "area" of a railroad that makes money. You can isolate the costs on any given segment fairly easily, but you can't allocate revenue to any segment very well at all. Since we're looking at revenues minus costs, any attempt to identify an "area" that makes money is, at best, a guess. Railroads are a network business, and determining which parts of the network make or loose money is not easily done.

How would you allocate the revenue from a TOFC trailer originating in Chicago and terminating in Seattle? How much to the PCE and how much to the "eastern" part of the MILW? You can pick an arbitrary method, such as allocation by mileage, but that's garbage. The MILW wouldn't have had the load in the first place if they didn't serve Chicago. Then there's that pesky terminal expense thing. One terminal expense in Chi-Town and one in Seattle. If you give the PCE more miles to spread the terminal costs over, it will look good. But that ignors the fact that you wouldn't have had the load in the first place without the line into Chicago.

What you obviously have to do is run an analysis on paper back then (in a computer now) that attempts to remove all revenue and expense of through PCE traffic and see what the effect is. Such an analysis would obviously kill the PCE because if would loose all its revenue except for what it orignated and terminated locally.

I don't know how Sol is allocating revenue to support his claim that the PCE was viable, he don't say. However he's doing it, it's arbitrary.

But I do know that a good part of the MILW has been picked up and is operated today. The CP picked up Chicago-Twin Cities, IC&E took lines in Illinois, Iowa, and Minnesota. BNSF took lines in South Dakota. But nobody wanted that *** PCE. It was ripped out of the ground. That should tell you all you need to know about it's potential to earn a buck.

2) The "gateways" were never going to be successful. Unless it was MILW originated/terminated freight, this amounted to cutting the MILW into a haul for no good reason.

As an example, take a load originating in Ohio destined to a BN served receiver in
Montana. Using a "gateway" the load could be routed through Chicago to the MILW for BN delivery in Montana. This would give the majority of the money "West of Chicago" to the MILW, and the BN would never sit still for such a thing.

There's a term in railroading for that: The BN was getting "Short Hauled". They could have handeld the load from Chicago to destination, but all they got was the "short haul" from "gateway" to destination. Their revenue suffered accordingly. And they weren't going to put up with that. One of the worst things that can be said about a railroad sales representative is that his/her customers are "short hauling" him/her.

I've done it. With the ICG.

First you try to be nice. Convince the shipper/receiver, whoever controls the freight, that he/she really doesn't want to use the MILW as an intermediary. After all, you're the railroad providing the all important terminal service. Buy him/her a nice lunch and a round of golf at a country club. Fork over some free tickets to a concert. After all, there's no real advantage to thier using the MILW as an intermediary, and they're just costing their serving railroad money. "Why are you doing this to me? I thought you and I were friends?"

If that don't work, then bring the hammer down.

"You didn't get your second switch today? I don't understand how that could happen? We've been doing that for years. I'll call the trainmaster right away."

"You didn't get switched at all today?" Jesus Christ! I'll go talk to the trainmaster."

"You watched your inbound loads go by on the local back and forth for a week and it never stopped! How could that possibly happen?'"

"You know, none of this ever happened until you started using the MILW through that new 'gateway'".

They'll get the message one way or another.

This ain't a game folks. All the MILW did was go bankrupt three times in the 70 year history of its PCE and it was dragging other railroads down with it in doing so.

Good-by to the MILW PCEand good riddance.

Ken Strawbridge

[MichaelSol]

That is the most incoherent thing I have ever read.

Let's suppose that Milwaukee Road hired outside, experienced, railroad consultants and paid them a ton of money.

And suppose after a great deal of traffic survey and analysis they came back and said "you can't make money without the PCE" and, "if you have the PCE you have a good shot at being a profitable railroad," then you would be exactly right because that it exactly what the consultants, Milwaukee Road's own bankers -- Continental Illinois and Harris -- major creditors, private investment bankers and the largest shippers all concluded.

Why they might disagree with Ken Strawbridge is probably due to two reasons: 1) they knew what they were talking about, and 2) he doesn't.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
I don't know how Sol is allocating revenue to support his claim that the PCE was viable, he don't say. However he's doing it, it's arbitrary.

Station Revenue Reports, Terminating, Originating and Connecting, Office of the Vice President, Finance, Milwaukee Road, 1950-1980.

Application to Abandon, Appendix K, "Revenues and Expenses, Lines West of Miles City, Montana," Milwaukee Road, ICC, signed by Stanley Hillman.

Milwaukee Road Strategic Planning Studies, 1979, Booz, Allen, Hamilton.

Affidavit, Fred Simpson
Affidavit, Yale Lewis
Affidavit (Verified Statement), W.L. Smith
Affidavit, (Verified Statement), Paul Cruikshank
Affidavit, (Verified Statement), Glenn Reynolds
Affidavit, (Verified Statement), Michael Sol
Affidavit, Marty Garelick

Deposition, WL Smith
Deposition, R.L. Kratochwill
Deposition, CE Crippen
Deposition, George Kronberg
Deposition, Paul Cruikshank
Deposition, Tom Powers
Deposition, R.V. Nugent

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

That is the most incoherent thing I have ever read.

Let's suppose that Milwaukee Road hired outside, experienced, railroad consultants and paid them a ton of money.

And suppose after a great deal of traffic survey and analysis they came back and said "you can't make money without the PCE" and, "if you have the PCE you have a good shot at being a profitable railroad," then you would be exactly right because that it exactly what the consultants, Milwaukee Road's own bankers -- Continental Illinois and Harris -- major creditors, private investment bankers and the largest shippers all concluded.

Why they might disagree with Ken Strawbridge is probably due to two reasons: 1) they knew what they were talking about, and 2) he doesn't.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Yes, and that's why the Federal bacruptcy judge OK'd the PCE shut down?
I'd bet, and I do bet, that he didn't find their findings credible.

All you gottta' know is that the bankers loaned half a billion to start the Chicago, Missouri and Western. It lasted 10 months.

I wss at a short line financing conference and I ask a Citi Bank guy about that. He said: "You mean, how could anybody be so stupid/" Their analysis is no better than my analysis or your analysis. Only difference is that we've had "boots on the ground".

I "know" you're full of***. You "know" i'm full of ***. Let's just take it from there.

Ken Strawbridge

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
Yes, and that's why the Federal bacruptcy judge OK'd the PCE shut down?
I'd bet, and I do bet, that he didn't find their findings credible.

Coming from a guy who doesn't know the difference between a reporting mark and a corporate entity, I doubt anyone would take the bet.

Here's what the CNW people thought of the Judge:

The Chicago & Northwestern Railroad, which had seen its offer as the last chance to combine with the Milwaukee -- a marriage that had been contemplated since Alexander Mitchell first thought about it in 1867 -- was bitter. "We lost because we had a federal judge who isn't a transportation expert, and he got outside his field," one official complained. Jouzaitis, Carol, "Full Speed Ahead for C&NW Chief," Chicago Tribune, March 28, 1985, Business, P.5.The Northwestern turned to other projects, but everyone understood that "there's nothing that ... will produce for the C&NW what the Milwaukee would have." Grant, Roger H., The North Westerm p. 238. If the North Western had controlled the Milwaukee, it “would have been in a wonderful position.” Nothing that happened in the Milwaukee Road reorganization case changed the opinion of industry experts that Judge McMillen was "naive." Jouzaitis, Carol, "Soo Line Chief on Fast Track with Takeover," Chicago Tribune, October 21, 1985, Business, p.1.

The Appeals Court, reviewing Judge McMillen's handling of the disposition, heaped sarcasm on McMillen in a way almost unprecedented at the Sixth Circuit. At 756 F2d 508 (1985). Judge McMillen retired.Possley, Maurice, "Senior Judge to Retire from Federal Bench," Chicago Tribune, May 17, 1985, Chicagoland, P.3.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
How would you allocate the revenue from a TOFC trailer originating in Chicago and terminating in Seattle? How much to the PCE and how much to the "eastern" part of the MILW? You can pick an arbitrary method, such as allocation by mileage, but that's garbage. The MILW wouldn't have had the load in the first place if they didn't serve Chicago.

Well, the TOFC/COFC manager at Milwaukee is puzzling over this one, for Milwaukee or any other railroad.

Not much originating in Chicago. Japan just didn't seem to be doing much TOFC/COFC importing.

Odd. Ken Strawbridge thinks they did.

[CMSTPP]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

That is the most incoherent thing I have ever read.

Let's suppose that Milwaukee Road hired outside, experienced, railroad consultants and paid them a ton of money.

And suppose after a great deal of traffic survey and analysis they came back and said "you can't make money without the PCE" and, "if you have the PCE you have a good shot at being a profitable railroad," then you would be exactly right because that it exactly what the consultants, Milwaukee Road's own bankers -- Continental Illinois and Harris -- major creditors, private investment bankers and the largest shippers all concluded.

Why they might disagree with Ken Strawbridge is probably due to two reasons: 1) they knew what they were talking about, and 2) he doesn't.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Yes, and that's why the Federal bacruptcy judge OK'd the PCE shut down?
I'd bet, and I do bet, that he didn't find their findings credible.

All you gottta' know is that the bankers loaned half a billion to start the Chicago, Missouri and Western. It lasted 10 months.

I wss at a short line financing conference and I ask a Citi Bank guy about that. He said: "You mean, how could anybody be so stupid/" Their analysis is no better than my analysis or your analysis. Only difference is that we've had "boots on the ground".

I "know" you're full of***. You "know" i'm full of ***. Let's just take it from there.

Ken Strawbridge

Now I'm getting sick and tired of you. If you don't shut the **** up I"m going to go and get Bergie and he can deal with you and possibly this forum.

[MP173]

What, are we now calling the political correctness police?

Let this discussion proceed, it sure beats the heck out of color schemes for SDP45's from the 70's.

This thread in more ways than can possibly be imagined, gets to the core of what went wrong in the industry and how it needs to be managed in the future. There are strong personalities here and that is not necessarily a bad thing.

ed

[CMSTPP]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173

What, are we now calling the political correctness police?

Let this discussion proceed, it sure beats the heck out of color schemes for SDP45's from the 70's.

This thread in more ways than can possibly be imagined, gets to the core of what went wrong in the industry and how it needs to be managed in the future. There are strong personalities here and that is not necessarily a bad thing.

ed

Right now it is a bad thing. This guy thinks he knows it all and I am getting sick and tired of his mouth always moving and contradicting everything we say. This was a good topic untill mr.man started this braul with everybody. All I wanted to see here was good talk on the Milwaukee road and now it's turning into a bull rally.
Like I said I don't like it when people like him break up a good topic. There is always some idiot that seems to be the trouble maker.
The thing is I don't care if he likes the Milw or not. The thing that provokes me is the fighting. People have opinions yes and I believe they are free to say so but when you start dissing people off for knowing about a railroad thats just ignerant. For god sakes leave the guy alone. Michael knows about the railroad and I think of it as school here.

So greyhound think about that. And.. try not to be ignerant at the same time.

James

[Murphy Siding]

I'm with MP173 on this one. If everyone remains civil, there's no reason to believe we can't have a discussion.

CMSTPP: Don't let passion for the subject cloud your perception of what's acceptable to say about it. The fact that you don't agree with a poster, doesn't give you the power to tell him to shut up. You can learn a lot from listening to opinions different than your own.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Randy Stahl

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol
overlooking nearly 50,000 miles of 3 kv Electrification, including two other railroads that specifically ran Joes -- including one in Chicago -- and presupposing, with zero knowledge, that they would not want a machine proven superior to just about anything else on the rails.

Did another railroad buy the Little Joes?

The Chicago South Shore & South Bend

Did CSS&SB buy all of them from MWK?

[MP173]

James:

Both Michael and Ken have quite a bit to add to this discussion and to the forum. Both appear to have had considerable experience in the industry.

If you only want to hear what you want to hear...then tune out certain people. Personally, I have been run around and my time has been wasted on several occasions by Michael. His attitude at times can be very condescending. I wont go into detail, but I am a very easy person to get along with and there are times...

Now, that being said, I will read what he has to say. I will enter into discussions with him. I understand that he will respond in certain ways. He is very set in his opinions. Facts can be offered, but are often brushed aside.

All that given, I will still read what he has to say and hopefully carry on a discussion with him. I value his opinion. I dont always agree with it. He doesnt always agree with me...usually he doesnt.

Here is my point, at long last. Each of us have a personality which comes thru on this forum. You want to call the Trains police...fine, end the conversation. Otherwise let folks cool off and reload.

ed

[Randy Stahl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by Randy Stahl

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol
overlooking nearly 50,000 miles of 3 kv Electrification, including two other railroads that specifically ran Joes -- including one in Chicago -- and presupposing, with zero knowledge, that they would not want a machine proven superior to just about anything else on the rails.

Did another railroad buy the Little Joes?

The Chicago South Shore & South Bend

Did CSS&SB buy all of them from MWK?

Bought new from GE

[MichaelSol]

Twenty Joes were originally built by GE. CSS&SB bought 3, Paulista RR bought five, and Milwaukee bought 12. If you took the equipment nameplates off and looked at the other side, the original Russian designation was there in Cyrillic alphabet.

At the time of disposition in 1974, the Joes were 27 years old. There were some discussions about sale, but ultimately the GE 750 traction motors commanded a higher price than the Company could get for the complete locomotive, and so the traction motors were removed and sold, with the remaining body shells scrapped in Seattle and Chehalis. Those traction motors are probably still working out there somewhere, but I no longer recall who bought them.

Here they are just before moving out to Chehalis.



Michael Sol

[wallyworld]

Good thread-just keep sarcasm at bay. I am as guilty as the next. Two sides to every coin. A more interesting topic than most. One of my problems with forums is my own problem- in that I have been into trains for 50 years-At my age, most you have heard it all before or say to yourself theres not much more to this than I already know-this is an interesting topic from one who gets bored pretty easily.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Twenty Joes were originally built by GE. CSS&SB bought 3, Paulista RR bought five, and Milwaukee bought 12. If you took the equipment nameplates off and looked at the other side, the original Russian designation was there in Cyrillic alphabet.

At the time of disposition in 1974, the Joes were 27 years old. There were some discussions about sale, but ultimately the GE 750 traction motors commanded a higher price than the Company could get for the complete locomotive, and so the traction motors were removed and sold, with the remaining body shells scrapped in Seattle and Chehalis. Those traction motors are probably still working out there somewhere, but I no longer recall who bought them.

Here they are just before moving out to Chehalis.



Michael Sol

Given the information you provided above, it appears that greyhounds was correct about the scrap value of the Little Joes.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
2) The "gateways" were never going to be successful. Unless it was MILW originated/terminated freight, this amounted to cutting the MILW into a haul for no good reason.

As an example, take a load originating in Ohio destined to a BN served receiver in
Montana. Using a "gateway" the load could be routed through Chicago to the MILW for BN delivery in Montana. This would give the majority of the money "West of Chicago" to the MILW, and the BN would never sit still for such a thing.

This is why I am beginning to genuinely suspect that the gentleman has no idea what he is talking about in general, or the Milwaukee Road in particular.

First, he offers a completely incomprehensible and thoroughly incoherent definition of Gateways. By his definition, of course they would never work. But, that's not how they worked. His detail description of them shows that he doesn't know.

The two Northern Tier carriers, NP and GN, ruthlessly shorthauled each other and the Milwaukee by refusing to set joint rates west of the Twin Cities. Milwaukee originated a considerable volume of traffic destined for the West Coast or Pacific Northwest destinations, but always got the shorthaul because of the lack of joint rates if the destination was on either the NP or GN. Milwaukee would originate the traffic, carry it to the Twin Cities, and if the destination was located on the NP, GN or SPS, turn the traffic over to NP or GN at the Twin Cities. A good deal of GN and NP's transcontinental line hauls was Milwaukee Road originated traffic.

The specific purpose of the Gateways was to open Milwaukee interchange to the northern lines at points west of the Twin Cities. As the originating carrier, Milwaukee could then obtain the long haul on its traffic going West and instead of turning the traffic over to NP or GN at Twin Cities if the final destination were located on their lines, Milwaukee could now turn the traffic over to NP or GN at Fargo or Linton, ND, Miles City, Judith Gap, Great Falls, Billings, Bozeman, Butte and Missoula, MT, Spokane, Tacoma or Seattle, WA. and Portland, Oregon.

That resembled not at all the convoluted scenario posted by greyhounds.

Primarily, the Milwaukee Western Gateways were designed with westbound traffic in mind.

There is no doubt they were successful. Historically, the three carriers, NP, GN, and MILW carried 2/3 of their transcontinental traffic eastbound, and only 1/3 traveled westbound. There was a historic imbalance in PNW traffic to and from the Midwest. Nothing much the carriers could do about it, it was just always there.

After the Gateways opened, Milwaukee's traffic was evenly balanced in both directions; the first time for any of the three competitors that this situation existed. Trains got heavier, and went from 2-4 per day to 6-10 per day. This represented, for the first time, normal traffic on the Milwaukee Road PCE that the Milwaukee itself generated to destinations in the Pacific Northwest. It changed everything. Thousands of carloads of traffic that Milwaukee had always carried went from short haul to long haul.

The Gateway Conditions resulted in the following annual revenues by 1974:

Fargo $243,098.88
Linton $35,114.24
Miles City: $2,999,260.16
Bozeman $32,492.80
Butte $1,443,281.92
Great Falls $253,443.84
Judith Gap $25,043.20
Missoula $93,035.52
Spokane $2,625,789.44
Seattle $6,604,725.76
Tacoma $439,040.00
Portland $12,791,784.96

Total: Gateway Revenue, 1974. $27,586,110.72

As you can see from Seattle, the fact that Milwaukee wasn't turning this traffic over at Twin Cities, but could carry it all the way to Seattle and then turn it over to BN for final delivery to Boeing, or SeaLand or whomever, was significant.

It should be noted, at this point Milwaukee had 76% of the Port of Seattle's overall traffic. For intermodal in the Puget Sound, Milwaukee had a 50% market share, UP had 32%, and BN 16% (2%, "Other"). Milwaukee dominated the auto market through the new Kent facility. Milwaukee was generating nearly twice as much revenue per mile of line in Washington state as from any other state on the Milwaukee system.

Portland was a somewhat different Gateway as it generated a considerable amount of Eastbound traffic to the Milwaukee -- as you can see, it was the most profitable of the Gateway conditions [$53 million in 2005 dollars].

There were other economic consequences of the Gateway Conditions which showed up at the Gateways, not as traffic through the Gateways, but as additional originating or terminating traffic.

Billings $1,586,480.64
Great Falls $772,220.16
Butte $1,729,383.68
Spokane $1,100,688.64
Kent $ $9,401,943.04
Seattle $4,947,276.8
Tacoma $4,980,704
Portland $12,604,263.68

Total: $37,102,960.64

The total overall impact, just in 1974, of the Gateway conditions was $65 million in new revenue. To add a little perspective, that's $270 million per year of new revenue in 2005 dollars. The Milwaukee Western Gateway Conditions were among the most effective and successful merger conditions ever granted by the ICC in a merger proceeding.

This is why, when Ken Strawbridge says ridiculous things like "the gateways were never going to work," he does so out of a complete and stupendous ignorance of the facts and circumstances of the situation and in this instance, he doesn't even know how the gateways worked.

Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding
Given the information you provided above, it appears that greyhounds was correct about the scrap value of the Little Joes.

Milwaukee was offered a sum above scrap value for the locomotives. The traction motor offer was higher than that. Had it not been, the Joes would have been sold intact for a value above scrap. Milwaukee Road did not receive scrap value. It got a pretty good chunk of change out of the deal.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol
overlooking nearly 50,000 miles of 3 kv Electrification, including two other railroads that specifically ran Joes -- including one in Chicago -- and presupposing, with zero knowledge, that they would not want a machine proven superior to just about anything else on the rails.

Did another railroad buy the Little Joes?

No - there was no market for them other than scrap. As far as I know two have been preserved here in the US. A MILW unit on display in Montana and a South Shore unit at the Illinois Railway Museum.

The same thing happened to the BC Rail electrics only they were scraped when they were about eight years old. That's one of the problems with electrics - if the traffic dries up or the railroad fails it's hard to "rehome" them. The BC taxpayers got quite an "electric" shock from that little misadventure.

[martin.knoepfel]

there is no doubt the MILW deferred maintenance on the PCE. And cashing out is indeed a legitimate strategy, if you do not see any future for your business. Managment has no obligatio to us railfans, only to the creditors and shareholders of the company. greyhounds raised a very important question, without saying it cleary. The question is: would the PCE have generated enough profit to be a viable business IF managment had invested what was necessary to keep the ROW to class-1-standard?

An interesting question would also be: where did the cash go that the PCE generated. Was it used for the branch-lines in the midwest, or paid to bondholders or shareholders?