Euclid n012944 charlie hebdo All I have ever seen from him, which is admittedly very little, doesn't rise to the level of banishment, Many of the real nasty threads/posts have been deleted. What time frame was that in? I started posting in 2005, and I recall MS was posting at that time. I don't recall ever seeing a thread deleted because of his posts.
n012944 charlie hebdo All I have ever seen from him, which is admittedly very little, doesn't rise to the level of banishment, Many of the real nasty threads/posts have been deleted.
charlie hebdo All I have ever seen from him, which is admittedly very little, doesn't rise to the level of banishment,
All I have ever seen from him, which is admittedly very little, doesn't rise to the level of banishment,
Many of the real nasty threads/posts have been deleted.
What time frame was that in? I started posting in 2005, and I recall MS was posting at that time. I don't recall ever seeing a thread deleted because of his posts.
It happened, a few times. Maybe when you switched screen names you forgot?
An "expensive model collector"
Euclid I don't recall ever seeing a thread deleted because of his posts.
As I recall, the most objectionable posts were other members attacking MS for perceived "wrong doing".....and although I did not keep an encyclopedic inventory of deleted threads...yes I recall entire threads going "poof".
You've gotta remember that some of the regulars back then were 90% bile and vitriol, and could "light up" a thread on short order.
I find it abhorrent that Anonymous is the biggest poster on the forum. All the poster identities that have been removed and placed in that of Anonymous.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
CMStPnP Euclid What time frame was that in? I started posting in 2005, and I recall MS was posting at that time. I don't recall ever seeing a thread deleted because of his posts. And back then, the moderator would only lock a thead, but never delete a whole thread for any reason. And I never saw a thread even locked for the comments of just one poster. Also moderators always gave warnings before locking, and also gave an explanation for locking at the time they locked a thread. Moderators also told us that if they locked a thread, we were always free to start the thread again on the same topic. And it would be allowed to continue as long as it stayed civil. Thats a nice set of rules but I doubt TRAINS follows them consistently.
Euclid What time frame was that in? I started posting in 2005, and I recall MS was posting at that time. I don't recall ever seeing a thread deleted because of his posts. And back then, the moderator would only lock a thead, but never delete a whole thread for any reason. And I never saw a thread even locked for the comments of just one poster. Also moderators always gave warnings before locking, and also gave an explanation for locking at the time they locked a thread. Moderators also told us that if they locked a thread, we were always free to start the thread again on the same topic. And it would be allowed to continue as long as it stayed civil.
Thats a nice set of rules but I doubt TRAINS follows them consistently.
That is the way it was here during the era of posting by Michael Sol, which was the context I was referring to. Locked threads were always explained to the point where everyone knew what the problem was. And those locked threads were always found 100% intact when searching for them months or years later. If a thread had been deleted, we would all know that because it would be suddenly gone.
EuclidWhat time frame was that in? I started posting in 2005, and I recall MS was posting at that time. I don't recall ever seeing a thread deleted because of his posts. And back then, the moderator would only lock a thead, but never delete a whole thread for any reason. And I never saw a thread even locked for the comments of just one poster. Also moderators always gave warnings before locking, and also gave an explanation for locking at the time they locked a thread. Moderators also told us that if they locked a thread, we were always free to start the thread again on the same topic. And it would be allowed to continue as long as it stayed civil.
Thats a nice set of rules but I doubt TRAINS follows them consistently. I was a long ago Moderator on a much larger and more heavily trafficed website (Military dot com.....Army Forum) I think my reign of terror was 2003-2009. You cannot always say publicly why a thread is locked or removed from public view. Additionally sometimes it is not the assigned moderator doing the housekeeping.
Also, it always depends on the forum owner and you will have to ask a TRAINS Mod specifically but usually the business practice is to always retain the thread but move it offline making it invisible to the public but still visible to the Mods. Reasons for it are several, one is legal. But the basic reason is you always have someone that was suspended arguing why and you need to keep the old thread around for the other Mods because usually the suspended poster approaches another mod or second party for reinstatement thinking they will get a deal. So threads are usually moved offline into an archive area vs deleted. I would guess Kalmbach follows that practice. Because if they deleted them, replacement or stand in Mods would never know the history or what was going on half the time.
BTW, best part of Military dot com Moderator was the idiots that would go AWOL from the Army, Admit it in a post publicly they had knowingly done so......and they would always seem to flee to Montana, Maine or somewhere remote where the discussion forum software could get a clear IP pinpoint of their location or close to their physical location. Not a smart thing to do because the Active Duty Mods were obligated to take action.
BackshopMILW may have been stronger than GN, but not when you take into account GN's "allies"--NP, CB&Q and SP&S.
Wasn't there a short period of time like 10 years or so where NP was independent and had a controlling interest in Wisconsin Central as a route to Chicago?. I also believe NP contributed funds to build the Milwaukee Road Everet Street Depot in Milwaukee, either directly or via WC (1890's?). WC believe it or not ran passenger trains to Milwaukee via Rugby Junction. The interest of WC in doing so was not necessarily Milwaukee but as a passenger train connection to the many lake ferries serving Milwaukee (GT, C&O, I believe the third was Pere Marquette but someone can check me on that). Hence the WC passenger trains did not last very long into Milwaukee.
I agree though that sometime around the 1900 though NP joined the Hill Lines empire. Before that time I think it was independent.
Vermontanan2You’re getting Prairie du Chien and Platteville mixed up.
Yes, I got them both mixed up. It is the original Milwaukee and Mississippi line across the state that went via Prairie Du Chen and then onto Marquette Iowa via pontoon bridge.
BTW, you can't build anything across the navigable Mississippi River these days unless it is a lift bridge or high clearence suspension bridge. Some managing agency set that rule for the river. Also I think the lift span has to be a min amount of feet across as well as lift so many feet high for the river traffic. Just what I heard, don't know the exact specifics.
They no longer will accept swinging bridges or bridges with a pier in the middle. Pontoon bridges are out of the question. I believe in the Milwaukee's case it was a swinging pontoon bridge.
And back then, the moderator would only lock a thead, but never delete a whole thread for any reason. And I never saw a thread even locked for the comments of just one poster.
Also moderators always gave warnings before locking, and also gave an explanation for locking at the time they locked a thread.
Moderators also told us that if they locked a thread, we were always free to start the thread again on the same topic. And it would be allowed to continue as long as it stayed civil.
Retracted by CH
[quote user="Murphy Siding"]
charlie hebdo Murphy Siding Is it possible there were other factors? The answer to your last question is yes. Could you name a few? It won't change anything now but it might shed some light on a possible reason for declining interest in the forum beyond the biggest ones - aging and mortality.
Murphy Siding Is it possible there were other factors? The answer to your last question is yes.
Could you name a few? It won't change anything now but it might shed some light on a possible reason for declining interest in the forum beyond the biggest ones - aging and mortality.
If you'd like, I could send you a PM. I'd prefer to not do it here, as this thread looks like it's becoming all the things that the original was not.
OK
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy SidingIs it possible there were other factors? The answer to your last question is yes.
Vermontanan2 SD70Dude I've heard Rock Island described as the 'one railroad too many', and this could also apply to Milwaukee in many areas. It’s unfair (to the Rock Island) suggest they’re similar to the Milwaukee Road. As you pointed out, as far major main line railroads today, only Chicago-St. Paul qualifies for existing ex-Milwaukee Road trackage. The ex-MILW line to Kansas City has potential, but I don’t think it will be the big success CP wants it to be. I think the whole CP-KCS thing is CP trying to emulate CN. But the bottom line is that for routes North/Northeast/East out of Kansas City to the Upper Midwest, CP’s ex-MILW line is by far the inferior route. Yeah, a lot of Rock Island trackage has been abandoned, but far more route miles continue as important major routes today: St. Paul-Kansas City, Topeka-Santa Rosa, Herington-Fort Worth, Waxahachie-Houston, Brinkley-Memphis, and the route (mostly IAIS) from Chicago to Council Bluffs. Even part of the ex-Milwaukee route from the Quad Cities west through Iowa is ex-CRI&P. --Mark Meyer
SD70Dude I've heard Rock Island described as the 'one railroad too many', and this could also apply to Milwaukee in many areas.
I've heard Rock Island described as the 'one railroad too many', and this could also apply to Milwaukee in many areas.
It’s unfair (to the Rock Island) suggest they’re similar to the Milwaukee Road. As you pointed out, as far major main line railroads today, only Chicago-St. Paul qualifies for existing ex-Milwaukee Road trackage. The ex-MILW line to Kansas City has potential, but I don’t think it will be the big success CP wants it to be. I think the whole CP-KCS thing is CP trying to emulate CN. But the bottom line is that for routes North/Northeast/East out of Kansas City to the Upper Midwest, CP’s ex-MILW line is by far the inferior route.
Yeah, a lot of Rock Island trackage has been abandoned, but far more route miles continue as important major routes today: St. Paul-Kansas City, Topeka-Santa Rosa, Herington-Fort Worth, Waxahachie-Houston, Brinkley-Memphis, and the route (mostly IAIS) from Chicago to Council Bluffs. Even part of the ex-Milwaukee route from the Quad Cities west through Iowa is ex-CRI&P.
--Mark Meyer
When TRAINS did an article on how much of RI's track was still in use, a number of years after its demise, IIRC the figure was between 40% and 45%.
One piece of the Rock that I wish had survived is the Choctaw Route between Memphis and Amarillo. I'm not saying it's needed now, but I drove beside it a number of times west of Little Rock between 1982 and 1986 and hated seeing the track empty.
Euclid If anything, your counterpoint about the need to compare the Milwaukee alone to the sum total of 4 other railroads seems more like an example of playing with numbers. It is an arbitrary condition that you are now attaching to your question.
Euclid Murphy Siding Euclid Murphy Siding As far as MichaelSol goes, there's a lot of gray area in how to view that guy. Yes, he was smart and articulate, but he had some issues with some of his 'truths'(?) As an example, in the above quote, he wants you to believe that The Milwaukee Road was the big cheese back then. We all know that the big player then was a group of railroads all under one ownership group. If you add the GN, CBQ, NP and SPS together, they probably total more than $400,000 operating revenue- about 2-1/2 the next biggest player, Milwauke Road. He did things like that on purpose. In this example, he left off NP and he also left out the southern transcontinentals for some reason. I don’t see a problem with Michael Sol’s answer to your question that you asked of Railway Man on page 1. Your question was not at all specific. You framed it entirely in vague terms, as follows: "I realize that hindsight is always 20/20 vision. But, what did these railroads *think* they were going to accomplish? It would seem that any railroad that was planning on going toe to toe with the 800 pound gorilla would at least have some grand plan?" I think Michael Sol gave you a much more direct answer than your highly subjective question called for. Assuming his figures are correct, I can’t see how his answer was wrong, or untruthful, as you now imply. But now you are telling us that his answer was wrong or untruthful because NP, GN, CB&Q, and SP&S [? Michael's list included C&NW, but not SP&S] should have had the total of their operating revenue and tons of freight added together as if they were one railroad being compared to the Milwaukee, instead of each of the 4 railroads being compared to the Milwaukee individually, as Mr. Sol did. I have not read this whole thread, but did you present this argument to Michael directly during the course of the thread, or are you just bringing it up now? The point being, that MichaelSol liked to play with numbers and information to make them mean whatever he wanted them to mean, thruth or clarity be damned! Read Vermontanan's thread further up for a very lengthy explanation about this particular example. I am not arguing the great, endless dispute about the viability of the Milwaukee Road. There are endless positions and differing opinions about them. Lots of railroads have come and gone. There will always be disagreements as to why things happened the way they did. Michael Sol took positions and made his arguments. My point is that your exchange with Michael Sol about the 800-pound gorilla shows no evidence that he was “playing with numbers,” to make a false argument. If anything, your counterpoint about the need to compare the Milwaukee alone to the sum total of 4 other railroads seems more like an example of playing with numbers. It is an arbitrary condition that you are now attaching to your question. You only called for such comparisons now, long after Michael answered your vague question. And then you claim that his very specific answer is wong because it is not specific enough. You asked a very unspecific, rambling question, and he gave a very specific answer. Assuming his numbers are right, what is wrong with his answer? If you thought he was giving a false answer, why didn’t you tell him so at that time so he could have better addressed your question?
Murphy Siding Euclid Murphy Siding As far as MichaelSol goes, there's a lot of gray area in how to view that guy. Yes, he was smart and articulate, but he had some issues with some of his 'truths'(?) As an example, in the above quote, he wants you to believe that The Milwaukee Road was the big cheese back then. We all know that the big player then was a group of railroads all under one ownership group. If you add the GN, CBQ, NP and SPS together, they probably total more than $400,000 operating revenue- about 2-1/2 the next biggest player, Milwauke Road. He did things like that on purpose. In this example, he left off NP and he also left out the southern transcontinentals for some reason. I don’t see a problem with Michael Sol’s answer to your question that you asked of Railway Man on page 1. Your question was not at all specific. You framed it entirely in vague terms, as follows: "I realize that hindsight is always 20/20 vision. But, what did these railroads *think* they were going to accomplish? It would seem that any railroad that was planning on going toe to toe with the 800 pound gorilla would at least have some grand plan?" I think Michael Sol gave you a much more direct answer than your highly subjective question called for. Assuming his figures are correct, I can’t see how his answer was wrong, or untruthful, as you now imply. But now you are telling us that his answer was wrong or untruthful because NP, GN, CB&Q, and SP&S [? Michael's list included C&NW, but not SP&S] should have had the total of their operating revenue and tons of freight added together as if they were one railroad being compared to the Milwaukee, instead of each of the 4 railroads being compared to the Milwaukee individually, as Mr. Sol did. I have not read this whole thread, but did you present this argument to Michael directly during the course of the thread, or are you just bringing it up now? The point being, that MichaelSol liked to play with numbers and information to make them mean whatever he wanted them to mean, thruth or clarity be damned! Read Vermontanan's thread further up for a very lengthy explanation about this particular example.
Euclid Murphy Siding As far as MichaelSol goes, there's a lot of gray area in how to view that guy. Yes, he was smart and articulate, but he had some issues with some of his 'truths'(?) As an example, in the above quote, he wants you to believe that The Milwaukee Road was the big cheese back then. We all know that the big player then was a group of railroads all under one ownership group. If you add the GN, CBQ, NP and SPS together, they probably total more than $400,000 operating revenue- about 2-1/2 the next biggest player, Milwauke Road. He did things like that on purpose. In this example, he left off NP and he also left out the southern transcontinentals for some reason. I don’t see a problem with Michael Sol’s answer to your question that you asked of Railway Man on page 1. Your question was not at all specific. You framed it entirely in vague terms, as follows: "I realize that hindsight is always 20/20 vision. But, what did these railroads *think* they were going to accomplish? It would seem that any railroad that was planning on going toe to toe with the 800 pound gorilla would at least have some grand plan?" I think Michael Sol gave you a much more direct answer than your highly subjective question called for. Assuming his figures are correct, I can’t see how his answer was wrong, or untruthful, as you now imply. But now you are telling us that his answer was wrong or untruthful because NP, GN, CB&Q, and SP&S [? Michael's list included C&NW, but not SP&S] should have had the total of their operating revenue and tons of freight added together as if they were one railroad being compared to the Milwaukee, instead of each of the 4 railroads being compared to the Milwaukee individually, as Mr. Sol did. I have not read this whole thread, but did you present this argument to Michael directly during the course of the thread, or are you just bringing it up now?
Murphy Siding As far as MichaelSol goes, there's a lot of gray area in how to view that guy. Yes, he was smart and articulate, but he had some issues with some of his 'truths'(?) As an example, in the above quote, he wants you to believe that The Milwaukee Road was the big cheese back then. We all know that the big player then was a group of railroads all under one ownership group. If you add the GN, CBQ, NP and SPS together, they probably total more than $400,000 operating revenue- about 2-1/2 the next biggest player, Milwauke Road. He did things like that on purpose. In this example, he left off NP and he also left out the southern transcontinentals for some reason.
The point being, that MichaelSol liked to play with numbers and information to make them mean whatever he wanted them to mean, thruth or clarity be damned! Read Vermontanan's thread further up for a very lengthy explanation about this particular example.
100 year bonds. Pennsy infrastructure. Oklahoma dirt track roadbeds.
Who would you go with today?
Apple or Samsung.
We are quick to suggest that today's railroad owners and stock holders are only looking as far ahead as next quarter's financials. I've always wondered how forward looking the railroads were in say, that late 19th century expansion era. Did they have a 1-year plan, a 5-year plan, etc.? To me, some seemed to have some far-reaching goals in mind, some just seemed to be expanding like leapfrogs.
charlie hebdo It's easy to distort. For example, an accurate comparison of MILW with the Hill Lines would only include CB&Q from Chicago to the Twin Cities; other Q lines compete with CNW/UP (Omaha to Denver segment only), run Denver to TX, etc. In any case, he raised some interesting points that contribute to real discussions. All I have ever seen from him, which is admittedly very little, doesn't rise to the level of banishment, IMO. Truths? Other members, past and present make errors, though few ever acknowledge even when confronted with a real howler. Is it possible there were other factors?
It's easy to distort. For example, an accurate comparison of MILW with the Hill Lines would only include CB&Q from Chicago to the Twin Cities; other Q lines compete with CNW/UP (Omaha to Denver segment only), run Denver to TX, etc.
In any case, he raised some interesting points that contribute to real discussions. All I have ever seen from him, which is admittedly very little, doesn't rise to the level of banishment, IMO. Truths? Other members, past and present make errors, though few ever acknowledge even when confronted with a real howler. Is it possible there were other factors?
Murphy Siding charlie hebdo MichaelSol Murphy Siding wrote: I realize that hindsight is always 20/20 vision. But, what did these railroads *think* they were going to accomplish? It would seem that any railroad that was planning on going toe to toe with the 800 pound gorilla would at least have some grand plan? Even hindsight requires a perspective. Exactly who was the 800 lb Gorilla? By 1925, which was relatively late in the game, the Gorillas respectively weighed something different than you seem to believe: Operating Revenues, 1925: MILW $162,000,000 CBQ $159,000,000 CNW $148,000,000 GN $115,000,000 UP $110,000,000 Tons of Freight, 1925: CNW 56,000,000 MILW 50,000,000 CBQ 43,000,000 GN 34,000,000 UP 18,000,000 During the era that various expansion plans were being made, 1890-1905, of the named railroads above, Union Pacific had been the only one that had gone broke. Where on earth do people get this "800 lb Gorilla" idea? Mr. Sol made a fascinating post then, but it was ignored. Maybe that's one of the things wrong with the forum. Concerted, coordinated shunning by some members and heavy-handed banishment by moderators have largely killed interest. The latter applies to Wanswheel among others. Yes, that's probably part of it, but the bigger issue is that the world has changed. Internet Message Board Forums have become mostly extinct. At one time I was active on 6 forums, 3 railroad related, 3 car racing related. Four of those have dried up and blown away. I'm now on the 2 remaining ones, which are both quiet like this one; and I'm on FightBook. As far as MichaelSol goes, there's a lot of gray area in how to view that guy. Yes, he was smart and articulate, but he had some issues with some of his 'truths'(?) As an example, in the above quote, he wants you to believe that The Milwaukee Road was the big cheese back then. We all know that the big player then was a group of railroads all under one ownership group. If you add the GN, CBQ, NP and SPS together, they probably total more than $400,000 operating revenue- about 2-1/2 the next biggest player, Milwauke Road. He did things like that on purpose. In this example, he left off NP and he also left out the southern transcontinentals for some reason.
charlie hebdo MichaelSol Murphy Siding wrote: I realize that hindsight is always 20/20 vision. But, what did these railroads *think* they were going to accomplish? It would seem that any railroad that was planning on going toe to toe with the 800 pound gorilla would at least have some grand plan? Even hindsight requires a perspective. Exactly who was the 800 lb Gorilla? By 1925, which was relatively late in the game, the Gorillas respectively weighed something different than you seem to believe: Operating Revenues, 1925: MILW $162,000,000 CBQ $159,000,000 CNW $148,000,000 GN $115,000,000 UP $110,000,000 Tons of Freight, 1925: CNW 56,000,000 MILW 50,000,000 CBQ 43,000,000 GN 34,000,000 UP 18,000,000 During the era that various expansion plans were being made, 1890-1905, of the named railroads above, Union Pacific had been the only one that had gone broke. Where on earth do people get this "800 lb Gorilla" idea? Mr. Sol made a fascinating post then, but it was ignored. Maybe that's one of the things wrong with the forum. Concerted, coordinated shunning by some members and heavy-handed banishment by moderators have largely killed interest. The latter applies to Wanswheel among others.
MichaelSol Murphy Siding wrote: I realize that hindsight is always 20/20 vision. But, what did these railroads *think* they were going to accomplish? It would seem that any railroad that was planning on going toe to toe with the 800 pound gorilla would at least have some grand plan? Even hindsight requires a perspective. Exactly who was the 800 lb Gorilla? By 1925, which was relatively late in the game, the Gorillas respectively weighed something different than you seem to believe: Operating Revenues, 1925: MILW $162,000,000 CBQ $159,000,000 CNW $148,000,000 GN $115,000,000 UP $110,000,000 Tons of Freight, 1925: CNW 56,000,000 MILW 50,000,000 CBQ 43,000,000 GN 34,000,000 UP 18,000,000 During the era that various expansion plans were being made, 1890-1905, of the named railroads above, Union Pacific had been the only one that had gone broke. Where on earth do people get this "800 lb Gorilla" idea?
Murphy Siding wrote: I realize that hindsight is always 20/20 vision. But, what did these railroads *think* they were going to accomplish? It would seem that any railroad that was planning on going toe to toe with the 800 pound gorilla would at least have some grand plan?
I realize that hindsight is always 20/20 vision. But, what did these railroads *think* they were going to accomplish? It would seem that any railroad that was planning on going toe to toe with the 800 pound gorilla would at least have some grand plan?
Even hindsight requires a perspective. Exactly who was the 800 lb Gorilla?
By 1925, which was relatively late in the game, the Gorillas respectively weighed something different than you seem to believe:
Operating Revenues, 1925:
MILW $162,000,000
CBQ $159,000,000
CNW $148,000,000
GN $115,000,000
UP $110,000,000
Tons of Freight, 1925:
CNW 56,000,000
MILW 50,000,000
CBQ 43,000,000
GN 34,000,000
UP 18,000,000
During the era that various expansion plans were being made, 1890-1905, of the named railroads above, Union Pacific had been the only one that had gone broke.
Where on earth do people get this "800 lb Gorilla" idea?
Mr. Sol made a fascinating post then, but it was ignored. Maybe that's one of the things wrong with the forum. Concerted, coordinated shunning by some members and heavy-handed banishment by moderators have largely killed interest. The latter applies to Wanswheel among others.
Yes, that's probably part of it, but the bigger issue is that the world has changed. Internet Message Board Forums have become mostly extinct. At one time I was active on 6 forums, 3 railroad related, 3 car racing related. Four of those have dried up and blown away. I'm now on the 2 remaining ones, which are both quiet like this one; and I'm on FightBook. As far as MichaelSol goes, there's a lot of gray area in how to view that guy. Yes, he was smart and articulate, but he had some issues with some of his 'truths'(?) As an example, in the above quote, he wants you to believe that The Milwaukee Road was the big cheese back then. We all know that the big player then was a group of railroads all under one ownership group. If you add the GN, CBQ, NP and SPS together, they probably total more than $400,000 operating revenue- about 2-1/2 the next biggest player, Milwauke Road. He did things like that on purpose. In this example, he left off NP and he also left out the southern transcontinentals for some reason.
Euclid But now you are telling us that his answer was wrong or untruthful because NP, GN, CB&Q, and SP&S [? Michael's list included C&NW, but not SP&S] should have had the total of their operating revenue and tons of freight added together as if they were one railroad being compared to the Milwaukee, instead of each of the 4 railroads being compared to the Milwaukee individually, as Mr. Sol did.
MP173 Home » Trains Magazine » Forums » General Discussion New Reply Fill out the form below to create a new reply to the thread RE: Chicago & NorthWestern : The non-transcontinental. MP173 wrote the following post an hour ago: Those were the golden days of Trains forum. Not much to read these days, similar to the newspapers. ed Add Quote to your Post Post Body Enter your post below.
MP173 wrote the following post an hour ago: Those were the golden days of Trains forum. Not much to read these days, similar to the newspapers. ed Add Quote to your Post Post Body Enter your post below.
To: ED, Truly, "...From your lips to God's ears ..."
Those were interesting times, It seemed even the ranquorous, interspersonal jabs, intersperced with quite a bit of information; made the afternoon 'read' of the FORUM something to look forward to.
Those were the golden days of Trains forum.
Not much to read these days, similar to the newspapers.
ed
MidlandMike I just read this "dead" thread from its 2008 OP thru to today's posts, and am glad it was revived. One question I had about UP's route building over Sherman Summit. The Pony Express and Overland Stage routes were previously well known and passed just south and bypassed Sherman Summit. Later UP also built the Harriman Bypass south of the summit on a route with about 1/3 the gradient. Why didn't UP explore this lower gradient route from the start?
I just read this "dead" thread from its 2008 OP thru to today's posts, and am glad it was revived. One question I had about UP's route building over Sherman Summit. The Pony Express and Overland Stage routes were previously well known and passed just south and bypassed Sherman Summit. Later UP also built the Harriman Bypass south of the summit on a route with about 1/3 the gradient. Why didn't UP explore this lower gradient route from the start?
It's probably (like everything) all about money.
There's this, if you've not seen it:
https://www.trains.com/trn/railroads/history/sherman-hill-the-first-rocky-mountain-railroad-pass/
Murphy Siding To be fair, that happened only after South Dakota dumped a lot of taxpayer money into the lines to make them decent, something the Milwaukee Road couldn't do. Also, a lot of the Milwaukee lines in SD are gone now.
To be fair, that happened only after South Dakota dumped a lot of taxpayer money into the lines to make them decent, something the Milwaukee Road couldn't do. Also, a lot of the Milwaukee lines in SD are gone now.
Indeed, many Milwaukee Road branch lines in South Dakota have been abandoned. But the Milwaukee Road did have – by far – the greatest railroad mileage in South Dakota. I always thought it was interesting that as the Pacific Extension was going away, farmers in Montana were screaming “monopoly” for Burlington Northern if the Milwaukee pulled out and that was horrible, but it wasn’t an issue in South Dakota when BN assumed operating of much of the Milwaukee’s core routes even though farming agriculture had/has a much bigger stamp on the state’s economy in South Dakota than in Montana.
For the most part weak railroads disappear, and that was the case for the Milwaukee west of Terry, Montana. But east of there, its weakness was its reason for survival simply due to the volume of track in South Dakota (and that C&NW was cutting back, too, and the BN had much less of a footprint). With BN as the designated operator most of the Milwaukee’s track which was retained (first in 1980, and then in 1982), it’s ironic that the stronger railroad’s track was shortlined (such as the route to Aberdeen) or abandoned (the route to Yankton). Had the state shown no interest in investing in the routes they did, who knows how things would look? Undoubtedly, the coal trains from Gascoyne, ND to Big Stone City were an important reason the state stepped in. But even today – other than routes through Garretson and Edgemont, and the Bentonite from Colony, Wyoming – South Dakota doesn’t host any freight which routinely crosses the state going from another state to yet another state. Even a train from Minneapolis to Laurel, Montana, while it will handle some though cars, exists to serve local customers -including those in South Dakota – through terminals at Willmar and Aberdeen.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.