The Milwaukee Road

[Backshop]

AnthonyV

 

C'mon Charlie.  Living in a fact-based world.  There's no fun in that, is there?

 

I think everyone here has nostalgia for the way things used to be.  I wish that the steel mills of Ohio and Pennsylvania were still strong and US Steel still had their large fleet of oreboats and captive railroads.  But I also know its time has passed and we live in a new world.  The problem with some is that they actually think that they could turn back the hands of time.  

[AnthonyV]

charlie hebdo

 

 

VerMontanan

So, the “engineering superiority” is just another Milwaukee Myth.

 

 

 

 

Thank you.  It's helpful to read a post based on facts, not wishes.

 

 

C'mon Charlie.  Living in a fact-based world.  There's no fun in that, is there?

[charlie hebdo]

VerMontanan

So, the “engineering superiority” is just another Milwaukee Myth.

 

 

Thank you.  It's helpful to read a post based on facts, not wishes.

[Erik_Mag]

I've seen comments to the effect of the Milwaukee would have been better off parallelling the NP up the Yakima Valley (or a joint line). A more far out merging of the NP and the Milwaukee would have been extending the NP's Shields River branch from Wilsall to Ringling, looks that with some earthwork it would have been possible to get a 1% ruling grade both ways between Mission and Lombard.

I've also heard talk of BN interest in using the Milwaukee line between Miles City and Forsyth, but was never more than talk. Speaking of that line, my dad thought that Hathaway was named because it was half the way between Miles City and Forsyth.

[VerMontanan]

blue streak 1

Use the PSE where its profile is superior to parallel tracks?  Connect those sections to existing tracks at other points?  Now recognize that the tracks will be too far apart at some places..

Section, not "sections."  The only portion where the PCE is superior to an alternate route is Snoqualmie Pass vs. Stampede Pass.  A connection at Easton between the two was available when the Milwaukee was in place; the west end connection would be at Black River, but there has been much buildup along the route including WA highway 169.  Then there is the issue of street-running in downtown Renton, which was in place when the Milwaukee was still operating there on GN's Pacific Coast Railroad, and that elsewhere some of the MILW right-of-way is a popular trail.  A connection to the ex-NP Stampede Pass line in the vicinity of Ravensdale would be a more logical connection, but this would be an all-new alignment.  But it should be noted that the superior crossing of the Cascades is not MILW's Snoqualmie Pass, but rather the current BNSF (ex-SP&S) route along the Columbia River (as well as the UP route on the other side of the river) where BNSF routes its heavy westward unit trains and uses the Stampede Pass route only for eastward empties.  Directional running and additional capacity along the Columbia River route (Fallbridge subdivision) has drastically improved the flow of rail traffic in the Northwest.

 

 

[BaltACD]

blue streak 1

What about  an alternate type of restoration?   Use the PSE where its profile is superior to parallel tracks?  Connect those sections to existing tracks at other points?  Now recognize that the tracks will be too far apart at some places..

As always 'The Devil' ($$$$$$$$$$$$$$$) is in the details.

[blue streak 1]

What about  an alternate type of restoration?   Use the PSE where its profile is superior to parallel tracks?  Connect those sections to existing tracks at other points?  Now recognize that the tracks will be too far apart at some places..

[VerMontanan]

Fred M Cain

I think the Puget Sound Extension (PSE) was better engineered than the Great Northern line.  In fact, I think it was probably better engineered that most of the other transcons (The Sunset Route being a notable exception ‘cause in ran through mostly flat country.)

 

The reason I can say that is that it was among the last of the transcons to be built so they had heavier equipment at their disposal that the UP and CP didn’t have in 1869.  The PSE also was built about 20 years later that the GN line.

 

 

On the one hand, this is obvious.  As civilization progresses, science does too, and therefore do engineering techniques.  The problem with Fred’s theory is that the advancement of engineering didn’t stop in 1909 when the Milwaukee Road Pacific Extension was completed.  It continues to this day.  One thing that IS true is that when it comes to taking advantage of improvements in engineering and technology in general, the transcontinental railroad that LEAST took advantage was the Milwaukee Road.  Other than the short line changes at Loweth in 1956 (to reduce the grade from 2 percent to 1.4 percent – still a major grade) and in Sixteenmile canyon, the Milwaukee Road Pacific Extension’s profile was as it was built up until the end.  And considering technology (engineering and otherwise) such as CTC, power switches, and trackside warning detectors: almost none, and little in the way of basic improvements such as lengthened sidings or double track. 

 

Not the case with other railroads.  The Great Northern, which Fred concludes to be inferior to the Milwaukee due to the cessation of technology advancement in 1909, has had much of its original alignment changed, such as along Puget Sound, most of the route through the Cascades, much of the route through Western Montana through the Salish Mountains and along the southern boundary of Glacier National Park.  Even today, if one rides the Empire Builder across the Montana prairie it’s easy to see the old grade, replaced by the current alignment on a straighter, higher fill.  The Northern Pacific also made major improvements to the alignment of its railroad, most notably across Western North Dakota and along the Clark Fork River in Western Montana associated with dam construction.

 

But even in 1909 with its superior engineering technology, the one thing the Milwaukee Road never overcame was something also associated with its status as a late-comer:  All the best routes had been taken.   Despite this advanced 1909 engineering technology, the Milwaukee’s steep and twisting route over St. Paul Pass paled in comparison to the mostly river-grade routes through Western Montana enjoyed by GN and NP.  And when GN’s double-track railroad crested the Continental Divide eastward at Marias Pass without a tunnel, most of the rest of the route to the Twin Cities was fast and none of it was on a grade over .8 percent (.6 percent east of Havre); In contrast, after eastward Milwaukee trains emerged from the tunnel (on and eastward grade) underneath the Continental Divide at Donald, they faced a largely speed-restricted run to Harlowton through numerous canyons including nearly 50 miles of 1 percent grade (uphill/eastward) with the last 1 percent grade climbing out of the Little Missouri River in Southwestern North Dakota.  And the Milwaukee’s branch lines to places like Great Falls, Bozeman, Spokane, and Grays Harbor were worse – poster children for grades and circuity.

 

So, the “engineering superiority” is just another Milwaukee Myth.

 

[greyhounds]

CMStPnP

BTW, anyone remember the Milwaukee Road "Sprint Trains" intermodal experiment? That was a pretty cool concept, I think at their zenith there were three a day each way between Twin Cities and Chicago. Usually one SD-40-2, approx 30-40 flatcars and a caboose. It was right after the mainline 4R loan or whatever it was called rehab. Fun watching those trains fly through Brookfield, WI at 55 to 60 mph. They eventually cut to two trains each way then one, then they disappeared altogether. Railroad refused to release to the press how they were doing financially with that experiment but I suspect not so good based on the loadings.

Yep, sure do.  They were going at the same time we had the "Slingshots" between Chicago and East St. Louis.

They were a government (FRA) initiated "experiment".  And, IIRC, they operated before deregulation.  They were significantly handicapped by government restrictions.  The railroad couldn't lower rates, for example.  The business was mostly moved on ramp to ramp TOFC plan 2.5 rates.  A ramp to ramp rate is automatically wrong in two ways: 1) it underprices some business leaving money on the table and, 2) it overprices other business causing it to move by highway.  To maximize profit the traffic must move on a door to door rate and that was very hard to do under regulation.  This is particularly important on shorter haul routes such as Chicago-Twin Cities.  The government set up an experiment and then restricted it so as it had to fail.

The railroad was able to establish some door to door through rates with common carrier truck lines.  That helped, but not enough.  

As an aside, I had a friend who was a Milwaukee trainmaster in the Twin Cities.  She (yes, she) told me that she had to get the trains out on time.  So she'd cause freight to be left behind when loading the trailers on the flatcars would delay the departure.  That's a good way to loose customers.  It's the movement of the freight that's important - not the train.

 

[mudchicken]

CMStPnP

BTW, anyone remember the Milwaukee Road "Sprint Trains" intermodal experiment?    That was a pretty cool concept, I think at their zenith there were three a day each way between Twin Cities and Chicago.   Usually one SD-40-2, approx 30-40 flatcars and a caboose.   It was right after the mainline 4R loan or whatever it was called rehab.    Fun watching those trains fly through Brookfield, WI at 55 to 60 mph.    They eventually cut to two trains each way then one, then they disappeared altogether.    Railroad refused to release to the press how they were doing financially with that experiment but I suspect not so good based on the loadings.

 

Brodsky dragged that over to the Santa Fe where they also eventually failed (Q-Trains)....Not enough traffic to justify. (With Amazon, internet commerce and the changing merchandising/shipping market, somebody may take a stab at it again.)

[Electroliner 1935]

Fred, I have no ox to flay in this issue. If you want to advocate for the rebuilding of the PSE, that is your choice. Different people undertake the causes they choose. Some are cowed by opposition, and some become crusaders. My opinion has no facts to support or destroy your quest. Many worthwhile causes have been destroyed by naysayers and many hours have been exhausted fighting for losing causes. 

I mourn over many of the rail routes I used to work on back in the fifties. The PRR had the double track cab signaled 152 pound rail line between St. Louis and Pittsburgh which no longer exists East of Indianapolis. The Cincinnati and Xenia is a bike trail. The freight traffic is not there to support these lines. I accept these facts.

BNSF is the dominant RR in the area of the PSE and has expended big dollars to add track where they felt there was an economic case for it. Case in point, the new bridge near Spokane. If the traffic required it, I think they might consider restoring the PSE and they have not

I have doubt that any economic case can be made for the rebuild of the PSE, but if you wish to persue it, and, that is your choice, good luck and enjoy.

[Fred M Cain]

Charlie,

O.K., I wasn't gonna respone anymore but I will one more time.  Was what you stated about the PSE making "no economic sense" fact?  Now you're telling me it's just an outsider's "opinion".

I actually respect your opinion.  But, like I keep saying there are two sides.  That's why I want to quit because continuing to argue this is basically pointless.

I am going to try and do what I can to explore the relaying of this line.  I cannot do much but I will do what I can.  First I will try to get to the facts.  "Overmod", whoever he is, has actually helped me with that.

Perhaps I was just a bit too curt in my last response.  I don't hold anything against anyone on this list.

 

Regards,
Fred M. Cain

[charlie hebdo]

Fred.   I have no idea of what either of them said on the PSE question.  I was just offering my outsider's opinion not based on some idealized dream.  Not sure why you  cannot handle opinions of others.  No one whom I am aware of  was "run off the thread" by anyone. 

[charlie hebdo]

Fred.   I have no idea of what either of them said on the PSE question.  I was just offering my outsider's opinion not based on some idealized dream.  Not sure why you  cannot handle opinions of others. 

[Fred M Cain]

charlie hebdo

The reason it will never be restored is it makes no economic sense.  It was a bad decision by the Milwaukee  Road to build it in the first place.  (SNIP)

Charlie,

Did you read in my last e-mail that there are TWO conflicting viewpoints on this?  Unfortunately, all the people who take the opposite viewpoint from you have evidently been run off this forum thread.

And so it will be with me.

Farewell and good luck to ya!

Regards

Fred M. Cain

[charlie hebdo]

The reason it will never be restored is it makes no economic sense.  It was a bad decision by the Milwaukee  Road to build it in the first place.  The competing rails are nowhere near capacity even now.  Look at the demographics and geography if you need confirmation. 

[Fred M Cain]

I think the Puget Sound Extension (PSE) was better engineered than the Great Northern line.  In fact, I think it was probably better engineered that most of the other transcons (The Sunset Route being a notable exception ‘cause in ran through mostly flat country.)

 

The reason I can say that is that it was among the last of the transcons to be built so they had heavier equipment at their disposal that the UP and CP didn’t have in 1869.  The PSE also was built about 20 years later that the GN line.

 

However, I have said this before but I dare to say it again.  Not all Milwaukee Road enthusiasts are in agreement about this.  Followers of Thomas Ploss and Michael Sol tend to believe one thing while followers of Mark Meyer tend to believe the other thing and both sides can be passionate about it.

 

So who’s right?  I can’t answer that but I will say what I believe.  I believe that the PSE deserves to be an integral part of the Nation’s basic infrastructure and deserves to be restored.  Period.  Why?  Well, there again you’ve got two sides and two conflicting viewpoints.  I can say this, however.  If a way could be found, how would that hurt?  It seems like its removal hurt us more.  Our leaders just plain failed us (again).

 

If this dream were ever to come true – and it just might – it IS possible – two things will have to change first.

 

Number one, the “winds of change” will have to change the direction they’ve been blowing in for a long time and our American government at all levels will need to adopt a more “rail friendly” attitude that’s not so biased in favor of highways and  against rail.

 

Number two, the environmentalists will need to back off just a bit.  Although rebuilding the PSE would no doubt affect the natural environment somewhat, steps can be taken to minimize the impact.  Furthermore, environmentalists need to come to terms with the fact that railways are more environmentally “friendly” than trucks and highways.   You’d be surprised at how many environmentalists don’t know that or don’t think about that even if they do know.

 

Can the PSE be restored?  YES IT CAN!  Will that happen in our life times?  Uh, no.  Probably not.  That is one thing I can’t be too optimistic about.  Because changing the direction that the wind has been blowing in for a long time is going to take time.

 

Regards,

Fred M. Cain

[Erik_Mag]

VerMontanan

Erik:  I am not following your point.  A 2% grade for five miles is significant and requires extra power on each train or a helper situation.  With regard to the shouldawouldacoulda tunnel, this could be said about any many routes if enough investment was made to ameliorate the situation.  I've heard the same type of speculation about a Milwaukee line from Great Falls to Missoula via Cadotte Pass what would only be a 1 percent grade - better than Marias (ignoring the horrible 1.5 percent eastward grade at Arrow Creek and the perpetual instability of the railroad between Highwood and Great Falls).  But, the reality is that none of these speculative ventures came to pass.  And my treatise focuses only on the reality that all the Milwaukee branches around Lewistown (not Lewiston as you typed; Montanans will tell you that's in Idaho) were flawed, and was not meant to speculate on what could make them less so.

My comments about the Lewistown (fixed) to Grass Range lines was that in my bombastic opinion, the Milwaukee line was in some respects better engineered than the GN line. Both lines were built with an eye to being part of a second mainline  for both roads, with the Milwaukee line to be part of the Cadotte's pass line (with the Arrow Creek portion duly noted as a screw up). In that case, digging a tunnel to bypass the 3.5 mi eastbound, 2 mi westbound section of 2% grade would have made sense. As an agricultural branch line, the tunnel wouldn't have made sense. It would seem likely that the motive power for trains to Winnett and Grass range would have been dispatched for a 1% ruling grade with the expectation that the train would double the hill between Piper and Heath.

It wasn't too surpring that the lines to Winnett and Roy were the first to go as there was plenty of competition from the adjacent highways. The Winifred line may have had a longer life had it built with something heavier than 60# rail - very much doubt that it would have made economic sense to lay heavier rail.

One last comment on the GN line, it would have involved two tunnels, one maybe 500' and the other would have been about a half mile. I don't now how much excavation was done of these tunnels. Work on the Milwaukee's Grass Lake to Winnett line, which was to be shared with the GN, was done in 1917 and further work may have been stopped by the USRA.

I'm also not getting the relevance of Roundup coal in 1973-74.  I imagine you're suggesting this would have been a boon to the Milwaukee Road had the Montana coal severance tax (1975) not been in place.  Maybe, but it didn't impede opening of the Sarpy Creek Mine (now Westmoreland Absaloka) in 1974 or the mines near Decker (granted, these would not be readily accessible by a Milwaukee Road, but they did flourish during this time frame).  The coal near Roundup did (in spite of the ongoing severance tax) get tapped when a railroad spur was built from the BNSF line near Broadview to the mine south of Roundup.  While shipments of coal from Signal Peak have gone east and south, the vast majority of trains originating here contain coal for export at Roberts Bank (Vancouver), BC.  Given the destination of the coal and the weight of the trains (nearly 18,000 tons each), operating them via a Milwaukee Road would be very unlikely due to its inferior profile and route structure.  Montana's current copper mines don't product a lot of business for railroads, so whatever the reference intended with your mention of the proposed mine north of White Sulphur Springs is unknown; the actual effect and need for transportation, if it comes to pass, would also be unknown.

 

A bit of background: I spent about a month per summer between 1971 and 1977 in Miles City in my uncles' shop, workers from the Milwaukee shop in town would show up at least weekly with tales about what was going on with the road. One topic of discussion was possible traffic from the Roundup area. My recollection is that the Roundup coal mines are mostly underground and thus the coal would be more expensive than strip mined coal from Colstrip, Sarpy Creek and Decker (although it is a higher quality coal). With the addition of a 30% tax, on the already higher price, I suspect the coal was no longer economic.

 

The Milwaukee would have had its hands full with the additional track maintenance with the coal traffic - I do remember how the shop would shake when the 6 axle GE's were traversing the jointed ex-NP track across the highay (10 & 12) and it was in better shape than the Milw track. Another memory was first seeing a coal train in 1969 being pulled by NP F units.

[CMStPnP]

BTW, anyone remember the Milwaukee Road "Sprint Trains" intermodal experiment?    That was a pretty cool concept, I think at their zenith there were three a day each way between Twin Cities and Chicago.   Usually one SD-40-2, approx 30-40 flatcars and a caboose.   It was right after the mainline 4R loan or whatever it was called rehab.    Fun watching those trains fly through Brookfield, WI at 55 to 60 mph.    They eventually cut to two trains each way then one, then they disappeared altogether.    Railroad refused to release to the press how they were doing financially with that experiment but I suspect not so good based on the loadings.

[matthewsaggie]

The new NC QuickPass is valid in 18 states up and down the east coast.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

There is some interoperability, I-Pass and EZ-Pass are interoperable, plus several toll roads use EZ-Pass.

[BaltACD]

The biggest failing of the Interstate System is that it was built to a 50 year standard; without any provisions of what was to happen after the 50 years.  As we are now 63 years after the system's enabling legislation - there is still no real answer as to what is to happen and who will pay for it.

Tolls are one thing, collection of them is another.  Are the tolls to be 'equitable' for the tranportation provided, are the tolls to be real grab into the travelers pocket, are the tolls to be a penalty on the unwary.  I have seen all these stragegies implemented - implemented in various ways - manual collection at designated toll plazas (which in most cases create massive traffic jams), transponder collections as well as 'toll by tag' (with the toll amount being sent to the registered owner of the vehicle - without regard to the driver).  On top of that mess, there are multiple transponder collection systems that ARE NOT interoperatable.  In my home area there is EZ-Pass, in the other areas I travel to there are Sun Pass and K-Tag - these three systems are not interoperatable.

Jacksonville has just implemented toll lanes on I-295 between the Buckman Bridge over the St. Johns River and the I-95 interchange South of town.  The toll structure I have seen is for Sun Pass ONLY, those using the lane without being Sun Pass equipped will be assessed a $25 penalty charge - since these lanes are marked to 'avoid local traffic' they will entice 'through' travelers to use the lanes and then sock them with the penalty charge account not being Sun Pass equipped.  A real bait and switch situation.

[CMStPnP]

JOHN PRIVARA

The freeways aren’t nearly as massive AND they didn’t blast them through peasant neighborhoods so rich suburbanites could commute quickly to work. 

Members of the German royal family are the biggest Nimby's on the planet.   All you need to do is accidently drive a tank across the lawn of a German Prince and they will escalate right up to the state or federal level.......no messing around with the locals because they deserve better.     So I am not sure your comment is completely true.   I am sure some of those autobahns were routed around their estates and castles at the expense of the local farmer.

[JOHN PRIVARA]

Fred M Cain

 

… but I have never been a fan of the Interstate Highway System.  Or, at least not as it was planned and built.  I have always felt it did incalculable environmental harm and harm to the Nation’s privately owned, rail freight network.  If we absolutely had to build a system like that, I think it could have been done better.

 

 

 

Absolutely, all you have to do is look at Europe.   The freeways aren’t nearly as massive AND they didn’t blast them through peasant neighborhoods so rich suburbanites could commute quickly to work.   But, we did it the American way.   

 

And, yes, American style freeways and airports destroyed the American railroads, and the ONLY reason it didn’t happen the same way in the rest of the world is the government ALSO owned the railroad infrastructure, and they didn’t want to destroy what they already had invested huge amounts of loot in.   American private railroads were just a victim of history.   It’s too bad they didn’t sell the infrastructure to the Fed’s in the 20’s or 60’s, if they had things MIGHT be different now.

 

But, regardless, you can’t change the past, but for future reference ALWAYS remember this adage, and apply it when you start raising money for your PCE rebuild. For MOST humans the following is true:   The ONLY thing better than spending free money is spending OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY.

 

 

That’s why EVERYBODY loves the socialist scam (OR investment scam) they are living off of, or benefiting from.    The trick is to find - and ADMIT - who is getting the all socialist/investment scam loot and then getting some for yourself.  (Why? See the “adage” above: because everybody ELSE is getting theirs!) 

 

And, who knows, in 100 years, as the sea-water starts oozing into the coastal cities, maybe then we'll have solar-powered electrified eco-friendly railroads speeding containers on the new PCE; built by evil-socialists with other people's money (and remember:  "it will be for our children's future!"  Just like the Interstates and airports...)

[Fred M Cain]

JOHN PRIVARA

 <SNIP>

 

However, it can’t be dismissed from the “socialist” perspective.   The Interstate Highways were built with tax-money and were centrally planned by bureaucrats, resulting in the best 20^th century transportation system money could buy; which resulted in the destruction of our beloved streamliners and the (near) destruction of a “free-market” railroad system (which is now a shell of its former self).   The government COULD rebuild the PCE.   The government can build (or destroy) anything it wants.   But those seem to be your only two choices related to the PCE:  the "evil-socialists" build it -or- it’s not built.  

 

 

John,

 

Well, you are pushing me just a bit and forcing me to precariously wander off the topic of the Milwaukee Road but I have never been a fan of the Interstate Highway System.  Or, at least not as it was planned and built.  I have always felt it did incalculable environmental harm and harm to the Nation’s privately owned, rail freight network.  If we absolutely had to build a system like that, I think it could have been done better.

 

For one thing, if they’d only built a system of pay-as-you-go toll superhighways whereby all the construction costs and year to year maintenance would’ve been collected from tolls, I think it might not have harmed the railroads so much.  There are quite a few people who are unaware of the fact that Dwight D Eisenhower actually had that in mind.  But Congress, then as now, got wrapped up in politics and declared “Make them free!  Make them free for ALL Americans!”  What in life is really and truly “free”?

 

Would that kind of a highway system saved the Milwaukee Road and the Puget Sound Extension?  After having read through Thomas Ploss’s book a few times, I suspect that the Road could’ve well failed anyways.

 

In recent years there has been more and more grumblings about adding tolls to Interstate Highways.  That might just happen eventually although most politicians and motorists HATE tolls.  But neither do they want to raise fuel taxes.  Everyone wants good highways it seems but they’re not sure if they want to pay for them.

 

Meanwhile, the system is continuing to deteriorate.  Some of the Interstates in the part of the country where I live are in deplorable condition.  I think some of them are so bad that they really ought to take a lesson from the Milwaukee’s management and cut speed limits.  What’s really crazy is that in a few cases they are continuing to add new miles of Interstates while here in the upper Midwest the system is falling to pieces.  It seems like we might eventually come to some kind of a tipping point.

If Congress continues to kick this can down the road, at some future point it might just turn out to be good news for the railroads.

 

Regards,

Fred M. Cain

[BaltACD]

Many people calling for the rerailing of certain lines on any carrier have no idea of the costs to put a abandoned right of way in shape to be a operating rail line as well as the secure revenue stream of traffic over that line that will be required to keep that line operating and in a state of 'good repair'.

Many of the lines operating today don't generate the revenue stream required to keep them in 'good repair'.  Yes - today they are operational, however, in many case they only generate enough revenue for the carriers to defer required maintenance to keep them operational; if the line continues to operate but not it does not generate the necessary revenue stream it will eventually degrade to streaks of rust across the countryside that is barely able to support any level of traffic.

[VerMontanan]

Erik:  I am not following your point.  A 2% grade for five miles is significant and requires extra power on each train or a helper situation.  With regard to the shouldawouldacoulda tunnel, this could be said about any many routes if enough investment was made to ameliorate the situation.  I've heard the same type of speculation about a Milwaukee line from Great Falls to Missoula via Cadotte Pass what would only be a 1 percent grade - better than Marias (ignoring the horrible 1.5 percent eastward grade at Arrow Creek and the perpetual instability of the railroad between Highwood and Great Falls).  But, the reality is that none of these speculative ventures came to pass.  And my treatise focuses only on the reality that all the Milwaukee branches around Lewistown (not Lewiston as you typed; Montanans will tell you that's in Idaho) were flawed, and was not meant to speculate on what could make them less so.

I'm also not getting the relevance of Roundup coal in 1973-74.  I imagine you're suggesting this would have been a boon to the Milwaukee Road had the Montana coal severance tax (1975) not been in place.  Maybe, but it didn't impede opening of the Sarpy Creek Mine (now Westmoreland Absaloka) in 1974 or the mines near Decker (granted, these would not be readily accessible by a Milwaukee Road, but they did flourish during this time frame).  The coal near Roundup did (in spite of the ongoing severance tax) get tapped when a railroad spur was built from the BNSF line near Broadview to the mine south of Roundup.  While shipments of coal from Signal Peak have gone east and south, the vast majority of trains originating here contain coal for export at Roberts Bank (Vancouver), BC.  Given the destination of the coal and the weight of the trains (nearly 18,000 tons each), operating them via a Milwaukee Road would be very unlikely due to its inferior profile and route structure.  Montana's current copper mines don't product a lot of business for railroads, so whatever the reference intended with your mention of the proposed mine north of White Sulphur Springs is unknown; the actual effect and need for transportation, if it comes to pass, would also be unknown.

[Erik_Mag]

VerMontanan

 For those who are interested and haven't seen it, I invite you to check this out:  http://trainweb.org/milwaukeemyths/

I have a bone to pick about your description of the Lewiston - Winnett line and the proposed parallel GN line. While the GN line was not completed, considerable grading work was done between Lewiston and Grass Range, which is still visible in aerial photos. GN also had a vertical lift bridge spanning the Yellowstone river for the extreme eastern end of the line. The 2% grade on the Milw line was limited to a 5 mile stretch. Had the line become part of the proposed second main line through central Montana, the 2% grade could have been bypassed by a 2 mile tunnel (limestone) which would have resulted in a 1% ruling grade for the route.

I do remember talk from 1973-74 time frame of Roundup coal being a new trafic source, but this was also the time that Montana imposed a 30% severance tax on coal going out of state. A more recent development is talk of a copper (?) mine near White Sulphur Springs.

[VerMontanan]

Fred M Cain

I suppose many of you on this group can dismiss me and my interests.  But those interests (and opinions) are NOT mine alone.  Once again, I can quote/paraphrase another quote at the end of the print version of TRAINS Magazine that went something like "maybe it wasn't needed then but it IS needed now" (emphasis mine).

So, if that's really so wrong, then maybe we should try and straighten that guy out.  But the possibility cannot be entirely dismissed that maybe, just maybe, he knows what he's talking about after all,

 

 

So you found someone on the Internet or in a magazine who agrees with you.  OK.  That's a pretty low bar.  You would be less likely to be "dismissed" if you were able to explain why it would more cost effective to revive the Milwaukee PCE than augment capacity on existing lower-cost routes.  Granted this is impossible due to operational reality, but touting that someone else shares your opinion is meaningless.  Obviously, you favor affirmation over information.  Even in the TRAINS article, those who favored retention of the PCE weren't quoted as to why or how it would actually perform with today's heavier trains in a deregulated market.  Hardly things that are inconsequential.