Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 I have just one question, if the BN could not make it with all of its coal traffic helping the bottom line, what makes anyone think the MILW would have made it with almost no coal traffic?? [/quote] No coal traffic? Hmmm. Both Milwaukee and BN had about the same 250% or so increases in coal traffic between 1972 and 1978. Coal was a big growth item for both railroads. Several big coal projects were underway on Milwaukee lines that were subsequently put on hold when the railroad embargoed. Company officials from both companies don't support your idea that the coal traffic was "helping the bottom line," but rather the contrary: that due to unexpected costs of coal unit trains -- substantially higher overall costs than estimated when the contracts were made -- the coal traffic nearly sunk one company, and may have been a key factor in the sinking of the other. [/quote] O.K. in 1985 the MILW had 9 to 11 units trains a WEEK, while the BN was kicking out that many in 12 hours. The MILW was bankrupt, the BN was not. Coal had a lot to do with that. Bert [/quote] Except by 1985 the PCE was no more west of Miles City, and the State of South Dakota owned the Miles City - Milbank portion, so the remnants of the Milwaukee no longer had a connection to the PRB fields. By that measure, it is remarkable the "dead man walking" version of the Milwaukee even hosted 10-ish unit trains per week. That being said, it would have taken a project similar to the CNW/BN joint line through to the Wyoming coal fields for the Milwaukee to have a similar number of coal trains out of there as BN and CNW/UP.
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