The Milwaukee Road

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

Fact of the matter: Despite all of the alleged advantages of MILW's Pacific Coast Extension over the GN main line, the GN main line is still operating and the MILW is still dead.

Is that meant to be an answer, or part of an interesting question?

Best regards, Michael Sol

A statement of fact and an answer. Since time moves in only one direction, the past cannot be undone and the Pacific Coast Extension cannot be resurrected.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

Fact of the matter: Despite all of the alleged advantages of MILW's Pacific Coast Extension over the GN main line, the GN main line is still operating and the MILW is still dead.

Is that meant to be an answer, or part of an interesting question?

Best regards, Michael Sol

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Fact of the matter: Despite all of the alleged advantages of MILW's Pacific Coast Extension over the GN main line, the GN main line is still operating and the MILW is still dead.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: VerMontanan Actually, the freight route used by most GN trains was 12 miles longer (between these points only) than the MILW route, which is even less than one percent of the total distance. Then, then you have to ask if the 12 fewer miles is worth all that extra power and helper crews.

This brings up two points.

1. Since Trains Magazine ran a profile of Western Railroads, showing highly distorted scale representations of comparative grades, the discussion of grades has been in a considerably different context than prior to that publication. It was as though everyone became an instant expert. However, the "1%" comment above, is interesting, if applied to the "grade" context as well as the distance context.

Trains' profiles made these grades look pretty significant, by skewing the scales considerably. And it was all quite misleading. For instance, Milwaukee's grade at Pipestone Pass, a short grade which ends at Butte was extended by [Trains} to show it ending at Missoula, 120 miles further on. Informative? Hardly. Misleading? Yes.

The relative scales of elevation and grade vs distance were measured in feet; and overall run, by mileage. But, these distorted the scales. Mileage and feet are the same measure, but to use one to compare to the other completely magnifies beyond belief the relationship of one to the other.

Well, of course they had to, in order to fit in the Magazine. And by that I mean this.

If you stand back, way back, and you are able to see, for instance, a railroad mainline from Chicago to Seattle, Los Angeles or any other destination, how will the profile look?

It will be, at that resolution, a perfectly flat line. The rise is so small for all railroads, compared to the run, that the difference is beyond the power of resolution at that distance. Taking the 8,000 foot Sherman Hill, for instance, it is not 1% of the total distance, or even 1/10 of one percent, but is 7 hundredths of one percent of the distance.

This is not to discount the operational difficulty of mountain grades under various conditions, but placed in the context of very long runs, the significance of grades, in this broader context, is relatively small. And context is everything.

2) Helper Crews. The Gentleman ran into a firestorm on the Milwaukee List with a rendition of helper districts that, unfortunately, ran into resistance from actual train crews who didn't recall helpers after 1974, particularly on Milwaukee's worst grade, the 2.2% out of Beverly. Now that wasn't the first time, nor will it probably be the last time, that this individual attempts to tell railroad people all about their railroad. I didn't participate in the discussion much, except to comment that I thought there was a diesel helper after 1974 at Haugan, Montana, but that "I would be interested to hear of other helpers after 1974."

For some reason, after that, I was accused by the gentleman of claiming there were no helper districts after 1i974, and that this claim was, blah, blah, blah. It was a fairly typical manipulation of attribution of one set of facts, to a different source, for the purpose of the usual personal comments. I was even informed that various people had "chimed in" suggesting there were helpers at places like Haugan. He didn't note that I was the one who suggested Haugan, even as he accused me of denying there were helpers. You had to have been there.

There was some further discussion about people who knew a little more about it, and the final conclusion was there was apparently some helpers for a very brief time, on the Pacific Extension after 1974.

This did fit with a Worth Smith interview in which he stated "We abolished the helper districts out West in 1974." I think this Smith quote was used somewhat as it was above when Smith discussed the impact of curvature using the Twin Cities line as an example. Smith's comments were attributed by VerMontanan -- and you can see it clearly in a prior post -- to me, and that is false. But that is typical and you can see that example as plain as day as an example of a typical distortion of commentary for whatever reasons he always does it.

However, for the record, I did go back and obtain a clarification on helper districts. Milwaukee did not use helper districts out West after 1974, while it is true that BN did, and still does, and of course maintains what are the equivalent of two additional helper districts (in terms of big engines running and fixed facilities) at two tunnel locations where they incur permanent operating expense running those big locomotive engines to keep the tunnels clear.

But, to clear up the mystery of the temporary helpers on the Milwaukee, here's what happened.

"We were able to aboli***he helper districts in 1974. Your note reminds me that we did put some power on some hills for a few days in 1977, or possibly 1978. I think it was 1978. It was summer, and for some reason there wasn't much grain moving, but we knew there was quite a bit of storage overhang out in the elevators. The harvest season was coming up and of course that's when all of a sudden the new crop doesn't have anywhere to go because there is old grain sitting there. Then all of sudden, the railroads don't have enough cars, of course. Well, we had a lot of empty cars sitting around, and there was a lot of grain out there. It made sense for us to anticipate the upcoming season and help everyone by getting that grain out. We dropped our rate by 15% for a very short period, a week or so. Just to fill up those empty grain cars. Make some money.

"Well, it was wildly successful. We had to scramble to meet the demand. I think Cargill alone bought 600 carloads or something like that.

"So, all of sudden we had all these carloads of wheat, and we begged and borrowed every extra hopper we could get our hands on. Unfortunately, we had a power shortage at that time, and this presented some problems moving these big trains. So, to facilitate these special trains, we broke the power assignments up, so much was assigned to the the trains, and then power assigned at key locations to get them over the hills.

"I think it took us maybe three, four days to get these trains moved to the Coast, and then the power was taken back to the regular trains."

Whether this supports the conclusion that Milwaukee "needed" three, four or five helper districts, I guess that is a matter of semantics under the circumstances. Regular operations did not. Four days out of six years does not support the conclusion that Milwaukee Road used helper districts on the mainline affer 1974.

But, if the idea of "grades", (ignoring curvature, and other items) is the idea of examining an overall "best" system for the reasons that people need to know that something is better than something else, even if they all serve their purpose, it seems like a railroad line has to be examined in a totality, and the bottom line is cost.

What's important?

1) Expense of operation
2) Transit time
3) Capacity
4) Ancillary costs

If "helper" districts are a "cost," then surely if BN has a couple, there is an additional cost of operation of those big blower plants at the tunnels. Milwaukee did not need these, but I understand at both Cascade and Flathead, there are two 645 engines working pretty hard on a daily basis to clear those tunnels. They are, in effect, two additional helpers, in a very direct sense of the term. In any case, they cost money to run, and they appear to run more than actual helpers. Actually more necessary than helpers. Do those count, or is there a reason to selectively count some things, and not others. Are there then four equivalent helper districts? Again, semantics I suppose.

The employee personal injury suits from lung damage in the tunnels. Settlements are typically confidential, but BN and BNSF employees refer to these suits from time to time, and apparently they are out there, and costly. They don't show up as operating costs, but are these expenses properly attributed to the costs of that line?

Finally, the extremely limited capacity of the GN line, 28 trains a day, is the most constrained mountain passage of any of the Western lines, and more so substantially than either the Milwaukee or NP Stampede.

It's ultimate efficiency and usefulness is so limited, that expense must be incurred to send freight elsewhere that might otherwise go over that crossing. This will get worse in the future.

I think that, like many things, as soon as someone stops pointing their finger at something else, and looks home, and begins to make a proper accounting of all costs, things aren't always as clear as a simplistic measure such as "grade" makes it seem at first.

At a minimum, I think this is part of the reason that every engineering study I have been able to find which addresses the topic makes the observation that "as a combination of grade and curvature," -- and every one makes that specific connection between the two elements -- Milwaukee Road was the best designed of the Western railways. No one, to my knowledge, has ever claimed that Milwaukee Road had better grades. But the engineers have specifically stated that, "as a combination" of factors -- it was a better design. I have no opinion on the subject, except by reference to a documented historical record. Coverdale & Colpitts said this in 1925, the ICC said this in 1970, and the FRA said this as recently as 1978. These are professional sources that deal with railroading from a perspective of a specific expertise.

I will concede that none of the authors of these studies had a geography degree, that I am aware of, but were burdened only with "PE" credentials amplified by specific railroad experience.


I am, frankly, stunned that a professional would seek the advice of a geographer at a University on a professional engineering question, and more startled to see that the "study" covered all of North America. And, I guess I am wondering, when there are specific, thorough, written, documented engineering analysis out there, by professionals and agencies without particularized loyalties or agendas, why would anyone persist in looking for contrary evidence except for those reasons?

Doesn't anyone pay attention to credentials and qualifications anymore?

By that, I mean a geographer, doing a study of such scope -- "North American Railroads," --lacks initially the expertise, qualification and experience to make any pronouncement in the first place, and a study of such huge scope must inherently rely on secondary, tertiary and even quaternary sources, rather than primary analysis. Gratuitous "Attaboys" aside, there is a genuine difference in quality between the sources that document the relative engineering success of the Milwaukee Road PCE compared to other transcontinental efforts, and the sources relied on by others in this discussion.

As I pointed out, and I am surprised that MH would support the idea that a simplistic measure such as grade is more relevant than my suggestion that these are not only complex engineering questions, incorporating a variety considerations, but also a matter of thorough economic analysis to determine. ultimately, the true "costs" of operation to the railroad, to its people, and to the rail system as a whole.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

morning, the old milwaukee was one of my favorites. one time the bensenville ill. yard was worlds largest. liked the little joe electrics it operated out west. went many towns the cnw went. was a real fine road.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by VerMontanan
[Nor do you have "normal" people getting upset by the facts. That comparing operating characteristics about respective railroads is "telling someone how bad their railroad was" means that someone is hearing something he doesn't want to hear.

Except you selectively fabricate your data, and you selectively ignore both data and context. And you know very well I can cite chapter and verse exactly where you have done so.

Since you had nothing to do with Milwaukee Road, the question is "why?"

QUOTE: If the Milwaukee was so completely omnipotent as is the picture Mr. Sol portrays ...

This is just weird. I have probably written more critical commentary on Milwaukee Road than anyone. The odd thing is that VerMontana has inadvertenty quoted me from time to time on Milwaukee history, seeking out as usual his negative take, without even realizing he was quoting me.

What the h*** does an "omnipotent" railroad even mean?

As I have said, and this is the reason he was specifically put on moderated status on a Milwaukee list, this is way beyond any rational explanation. You have to know the history of this individual, but I have even been approached by this fellow's friends and BNSF colleagues offering apologies for his behavior. No one can understand his negative obsession with the Milwaukee Road.

I regret I became a lightning rod for his obsession, but I am also somewhat less tolerant of being misquoted than most, or of historical dishonesty than most.

No apologies offered for that.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: VerMontana wrote: In fact, when Milwaukee finally received trackage rights into Portland on BN, they ran all their traffic via their route via Tacoma. Certainly, if the MILW had anything to do with the UP line to Portland they would have chosen to run it that way rather than battle the grades over the Saddle Mountains and Snoqualmie Pass and Tacoma Hill.

This underscores my point about grades. Marketing played a role. You seem to suggest here that Milwaukee was foolish if wanted the revenue from the full line haul. This simply makes no sense. This is the problem with either the "short route" theory of railroading or "the grade is the only important thing" theory. Neither one accounts, fully, for the occasional reality of the real world.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[VerMontanan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Michael Sol’s dwelling on the 2.2% grades of the Great Northern, applicable only to Stevens Pass also suggests that this was the only location worth discussing along that route.

This is interesting because this one of the reasons you were put on moderated status on the Milwaukee History group. You had detailed your standard list of arduous comparisons between Milwaukee and GN, which has been on ogoing obsession with you. Your lengthy list of comparisons did not include the SPS route, which made sense at the time because the conversation was exclusively about grade comparisons on main lines to Seattle. As usual, as soon as something comes up which calls innto question your assumptions -- a key point being that actual traffic flows have "some" consideration, and upon this ground GN traffic faced obstacles Milwaukee traffic did not -- you change the conversation to something else, kind of along the lines of "Oh yeah, well what about ...?"

Well it may satisfying to you to argue in this fashion, consistenly, it never really seems to shed much light on your original contentions.

Maybe that's the point.

Incidentally, the "superior" route from Spokane to Portland was not SP&S, but Milwaukee/UP via Marengo.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Why do you so consistently attack people rather than their facts, ideas or opinions?

People should be aware of this particular individual. His "factual" renditions are rarely what they appear to be at first glance.

He changes "facts." He has personal vendettas, but also seems to have one against Milwaukee Road, which he never worked for, and knows nothing about. So he makes stuff up about it. I simply do not understand that kind of a person or why he constantly inserts himself into discussions about, knowing nothing about the subject material. He did announce on the Milwaukee History Group and -- I am not making this up -- his mission is to protect "non-disciples" from disciples of the Milwaukee Road. Most Milwaukee Road people have a specific opinion about him after listening to him tell them all about their railroad.

You just don't have normal people going to GN or NP lists, for example, just to tell them how bad their railroad really was, compared to some other railroad. But, that is what this individual spends an inordinate amount of time doing, and it is really difficult to nail down a discussion, because of his habit -- and I mean habit -- of continually altering the terms of the discussion.whenever it isn't going "his" way. And that's the only way it is.

Nor do you have "normal" people getting upset by the facts. That comparing operating characteristics about respective railroads is "telling someone how bad their railroad was" means that someone is hearing something he doesn't want to hear. All railroads had good points and bad, but changing history doesn't seem to make any sense. And still the lurking question: If the Milwaukee was so completely omnipotent as is the picture Mr. Sol portrays, why was it the only transcontinental route in the country to fold? The more you build it up, the less reasons there are that it succumbed. Repeating: Strong Routes Survive, in some form!

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

There is a history here, and I am glad you are not part of it. He was put on moderated status on an otherwise pretty friendly and compatible railroad history group, which I think happened only once or twice in the nine year history of that of that group.

And, i suppose my feelings on that are not much different than yours when I have seen you call into question people's intelligence or experience on issues which you feel strongly about, or have specific knowledge about.

Of course it is interesting that your post doesn't contribute a thing about the topic of the Thread, but is really a personal attack, isn't it?

There IS a history here, Bob, and it's all available on line on the MILW Yahoogroups list. For those interested, you can find that Mr. Sol can outdo anyone in namecalling. I was never put on moderated status that I know of in this group, but I know of others who were, and why? Because they became upset with Mr. Sol (not hard to do, witness other threads in this very forum), which also tells you a lot about the moderator of the group, who is a good freind of Mr. Sol. But you found out the main thing about Mr. Sol: Anyone who says anything contrary to his point of view is guilty of a personal attack. You see that so often in today's society, unfortunately. Everyone wants to be a victim. The point is to take the "personal attack" claim with a grain of salt, and let others make their opinions based on the statements like that, and of others.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

This thread seems like a VA favorite discussion; the Lost Cause. We hear long disucssions about Stuart letting down Lee during the Gettysburg campaign.

That's a problem with history. It's so historical.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[bobwilcox]

This thread seems like a VA favorite discussion; the Lost Cause. We hear long disucssions about Stuart letting down Lee during the Gettysburg campaign.

[nanaimo73]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dgwicks

For those of you that like to read railroad stories
here are a few pages about the end times of the
Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific.

http://www.wwvrailway.com/milwauke.htm  

This is from the perspective of a railfan on the
Pacific Division in Washington State.

Enjoy!
Dennis

Thanks Dennis.

[VerMontanan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mark_W._Hemphill

VerMontanan speaks the facts.

James E. Vance, late geography professor of Cal Berkeley who in my opinion understood railroad geography better than anyone before or since, cogently summarizes the deficiency of the Milwaukee Road's Pacific Extension on both an operating-cost and traffic-potential basis in "North American Railroad Geography."

Thanks, Mark.
I'll take an "attaboy" from you over numerous "oh***s" from Michael Sol any day. In both cases, just considering the source.

[VerMontanan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

And, in fact Bob, as you now can see from his recent post, we are discussing mileage from Great Falls to Portland.

New topic!!

Hard to keep up.

Best regards, Michael Sol

And then there Mr. Sol's dissertation about MILW trains vs. Burlington trains between Chicago and the Twin Cities if you REALLY want a change in topic.

[MichaelSol]

And, in fact Bob, as you now can see from his recent post, we are discussing mileage from Great Falls to Portland.

New topic!!

New questions:

QUOTE: VerMontanan said:When one considers the MILW route from Great Falls, a major revenue producing point to the west coast, a major destination for grain, ...

Who would be shipping grain to Great Falls, Montana?

Hard to keep up.

And, want to guess where Great Falls was as far as being "a major revenue producing point"?

Best regards, Michael Sol

[VerMontanan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: VerMontana points out:The Milwaukee/UP via Marengo? The Milwaukee had nothing to do with it.

Aboslutely correct, I meant to say the shortest mainline, Chicago to Portland, was Milwaukee Road/UP via Marengo. Hadn't gotten down to proofreading that one yet. Best regards, Michael Sol

The actual mileages are:

Chicago-Portland, CB&Q-GN-SP&S via Willmar, Prosper 2,260.5
Chicago-Portland, CB&Q-GN-SP&S via Kindred 2,253.5
Chicago-Portland, CB&Q-GN-SP&S via Melrose, Prosper 2,242.5
Chicago-Portland, MILW-UP via Harlowton, Marengo, Hinkle 2,235.0
Chicago-Portland, CB&Q-NP-SP&S via Butte, Dixon, Ritzville 2,300.3
Chicago-Portland, CB&Q-NP-SP&S via Helena, St. Regis, Lind 2,328.3
Chicago-Portland, C&NW-UP via Blair, NE, Kemmerer, Kuna, ID 2,236.9

The MILW/UP route was the shortest (by less than 2 miles, but longer after the BN merger, of course, so this is only partially true), but unlike all the rest, through freight and passenger service was NEVER advertised. I always thought it odd that UP trains 19 and 20 between Hinkle (they once ran to/from Portland) and Spokane never connected with MILW passenger trains, for instance. But as it was, MILW passenger trains were the only ones to the Pacific Northwest with the benefit of a Portland terminus.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: VerMontana points out:The Milwaukee/UP via Marengo? The Milwaukee had nothing to do with it.

Aboslutely correct, I meant to say the shortest mainline, Chicago to Portland, was Milwaukee Road/UP via Marengo. The point there was that, if Milwaukee wanted a fast route to Portland and this included traffic from the mainline, or Spokane on Milwaukee trains from Spokane to Marego (UP did not handle the Milwaukee trains, Spokane to Marengo, Milwaukee operated them itself, albeit on UP rails) or from its mainline, to Portland through its UP connection at Marengo, which was faster from that point to Portland that the SPS alternative. Hadn't gotten down to proofreading that one yet.

And some traffic did in fact move this route.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[VerMontanan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mark_W._Hemphill

VerMontanan speaks the facts.

James E. Vance, late geography professor of Cal Berkeley who in my opinion understood railroad geography better than anyone before or since, cogently summarizes the deficiency of the Milwaukee Road's Pacific Extension on both an operating-cost and traffic-potential basis in "North American Railroad Geography."

Hardly a case of factual discourse when Mark Meyer selectively pursues a single line of thought regarding railroad engineering. This obsession some have with grades being the primary determinent of which lines stay and which ones go is completely off the mark. If indeed grades were the prime factor, both the UP and NP lines to the PNW would have been torn out years ago, well before such a fate would have befallen the Milwaukee's PCE. Michael Sol is correct when he points out that grades are only one factor in determining a route's subjective endorsement as a "superior" route.

What is left out of the "facts" is that the Milwaukee was by far the shortest route between the PNW and Twin Cities. Distance is as much a determinant of suitability as gradient.

It has been offered before that one could claim a dual "champion" as far as PNW to Twin Cities. The GN/SP&S combo was the best in terms of grades, the Milwaukee best in terms of distance. The other players to the PNW, namely UP and NP, were and are by far the worst of the four PNW transcons, both in terms of distance and grades.

Distance is only important if the difference in distance is significant. Prior to BN merger, these were the distances of the various carriers between St. Paul and Seattle:
St. Paul-Seattle, GN via Willmar, Prosper 1,783.0
St. Paul-Seattle, GN via Kindred 1,776.0
St. Paul-Seattle, GN via Melrose, Prosper 1,765.0
St. Paul-Seattle, MILW via Spokane 1,779.0
St. Paul-Seattle, MILW via Malden 1,764.0
St. Paul-Seattle, NP via Butte, Dixon 1,892.0
St. Paul-Seattle, NP via Helena, Dixon 1,894.0
St. Paul-Seattle, NP via Helena, St. Regis 1,922.0

Depending on the route used, the Milwaukee Route was but one 1 mile shorter than GN's shortest route, so I guess it all depends on what your definition of "by far" is. Actually, the freight route used by most GN trains was 12 miles longer (between these points only) than the MILW route, which is even less than one percent of the total distance. Then, then you have to ask if the 12 fewer miles is worth all that extra power and helper crews. The answer, for 99 percent of railroaders, would be no. There are many places where this holds true today. For instance, UP sends just about zero percent of its freight from Denver to Los Angeles via the ex-D&RGW between Denver and Salt Lake City, even though it is signifcantly shorter than the traditional UP route via Rawlins, Wyoming (and if it was routed via the ex-D&RGW from Denver to Provo, and then via the UP branch to Lynndyl, Utah to access the route to Los Angeles, it would be all that much shorter). The reason is obvious: any savings from operating a shorter distance would be overcome by increased cost associated with more power and crews on the D&RGW route climbing to Moffatt Tunnel and Soldier Summit.

Getting back to a more MILW-specific point, however, here is the mileage between:
Missoula-Spokane, MILW 238.0

Missoula-Spokane, NP via Dixon 258.0

Missoula-Spokane, NP via St. Regis 286.0



This is a good example of shorter not being better, even with similar grades. The NP passenger route (via Dixon over Evaro Hill) is even steeper than the MILW over St. Paul Pass (2.2% vs. 1.7%) and was 20 miles longer. But it encounters much less curvature. In 1960, the last full year of the Olympian Hiawatha's operation, it departed Missoula at 620 PM, exactly one minute before NP's North Coast Limited did at 621 PM. Even though the North Coast Limited had 20 miles further to go and a moderately steeper grade to pull, it arrived in Spokane a whopping 1 hour and 21 minutes ahead of the Olympian Hiawatha, proof that mileage is not always the primary factor, just one of many. Overall between St. Paul and Seattle, the MILW train was faster, and there the mileage difference was likely relevant. When it came to freight, the NP line was 58 miles further; very significant this short distance. This is when grade came into play, as running 58 miles further was deemed more desirable than tackling the grade and curvature of MILW's St. Paul Pass (as to why BN didn't grab the MILW line at its demise). BN crews eventually made the trip from Missoula to Spokane (and MRL crews still do), while the MILW, due to the profile, was saddled with intermediate crew change points. The NP's maximum grade was only .8 percent. It was mostly river grade.



What is really interesting on the part of some of the revisionist historians who seek to tout the advantages of the Milwaukee route is statements like, "What is left out of the "facts" is that the Milwaukee was by far the shortest route between the PNW and Twin Cities." OK. let's look at the facts. Not only is this untrue by virtue of the words "by far," but it just completely false after the BN merger. After the new alignment at Sandpoint and Spokane were placed in service around 1973, the BN was actually shorter, any way you look at it:

St. Paul to Seattle, BN via Staples, Casselton, Havre 1,749.8
St. Paul to Seattle, BN via Melrose, Prosper, Havre 1,736.0
St. Paul to Seattle, MILW via Malden 1,764.0

The BN mileage mileage actually became shorter when the line change around the Libby Dam project began operational just after the BN merger. It was further shorted to the mileage indicated above when trains began using the ex-NP route at Sandpoint through Spokane.

Mileage can matter, however, if it's excessively lengthy compared to another route. For example, when the MILW received trackage rights to Portland on BN from Longview Jct., their route matched up with that of BN like this:

St. Paul to Portland, BN via Staples, Casselton, Havre 1,801.6
St. Paul to Portland, BN via Melrose, Prosper, Havre 1,787.8
St. Paul to Portland, MILW via Tacoma 1,990.9

When one considers the MILW route from Great Falls, a major revenue producing point to the west coast, a major destination for grain, the following comparative mileages are interesting:

Great Falls to Longview, BN via Pasco 883.5
Great Falls to Longview, MILW via Tacoma 1,178.4

Great Falls to Portland, BN, via Pasco 858.2
Great Falls to Portland, MILW, via Tacoma 1,222.5

Incidentally, these mileages (to Longview and Portland) were only slightly higher during GN days. Back during the time when the railroads had to charge the same rate between any two points, the difference in mileage, coupled with the many more grades, certainly put the Milwaukee at a competitive disadvantage.

Depending on the time frame being discussed and the endpoints, Milwaukee's advantage in mileage ranged from minimal to nonexistent, and that's why their many more steep grades really did matter.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Michael Sol’s dwelling on the 2.2% grades of the Great Northern, applicable only to Stevens Pass also suggests that this was the only location worth discussing along that route.

This is interesting because this one of the reasons you were put on moderated status on the Milwaukee History group. You had detailed your standard list of arduous comparisons between Milwaukee and GN, which has been on ogoing obsession with you. Your lengthy list of comparisons did not include the SPS route, which made sense at the time because the conversation was exclusively about grade comparisons on main lines to Seattle. As usual, as soon as something comes up which calls innto question your assumptions -- a key point being that actual traffic flows have "some" consideration, and upon this ground GN traffic faced obstacles Milwaukee traffic did not -- you change the conversation to something else, kind of along the lines of "Oh yeah, well what about ...?"

Well it may satisfying to you to argue in this fashion, consistenly, it never really seems to shed much light on your original contentions.

Maybe that's the point.

Incidentally, the "superior" route from Spokane to Portland was not SP&S, but Milwaukee/UP via Marengo.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Why do you so consistently attack people rather than their facts, ideas or opinions?

People should be aware of this particular individual. His "factual" renditions are rarely what they appear to be at first glance.

He changes "facts." He has personal vendettas, but also seems to have one against Milwaukee Road, which he never worked for, and knows nothing about. So he makes stuff up about it. I simply do not understand that kind of a person or why he constantly inserts himself into discussions about, knowing nothing about the subject material. He did announce on the Milwaukee History Group and -- I am not making this up -- his mission is to protect "non-disciples" from disciples of the Milwaukee Road. Most Milwaukee Road people have a specific opinion about him after listening to him tell them all about their railroad.

You just don't have normal people going to GN or NP lists, for example, just to tell them how bad their railroad really was, compared to some other railroad. But, that is what this individual spends an inordinate amount of time doing, and it is really difficult to nail down a discussion, because of his habit -- and I mean habit -- of continually altering the terms of the discussion.whenever it isn't going "his" way. And that's the only way it is.

There is a history here, and I am glad you are not part of it. He was put on moderated status on an otherwise pretty friendly and compatible railroad history group, which I think happened only once or twice in the nine year history of that of that group.

And, i suppose my feelings on that are not much different than yours when I have seen you call into question people's intelligence or experience on issues which you feel strongly about, or have specific knowledge about.

Of course it is interesting that your post doesn't contribute a thing about the topic of the Thread, but is really a personal attack, isn't it?

I think there is a good rule of thumb to follow: if you like posts that stay on topic, stay on topic. There's nothing like a good example.

Take a deep breath, Bob.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[nanaimo73]

arbfbe
Thank you [:)]

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by VerMontanan
While Michael Sol seeks to dismiss grade as relevant because he claims it is “simplistic answer to a complex engineering question,” this can’t hold water in this case.

This is typical, you first change what I said, then focus excusively, again, on grades alone.

I did not dismiss "grade as irrelevant."

What I actually said was this, "If "grade" were the only element, it would still be debatable." However, grade is not the only element. It is a long, and apparently difficult, journey from "irrelevant," to my actual statement that it is a "complex engineering question."

Worthington Smith: "If the track was in shape, Milwaukee could always beat everyone. When I got to Milwaukee, I was looking at the Chicago-Twin Cites line, and realized something interesting. In the era when that line was built, railroads nearly always looked for the water route. Of course, this meant lots of curvature, lots of flood problems, lots of little bridges over tributaries. But, you had the gradient on your side and for most railroads, that's all that counted. Trains didn't run fast then, and so mainlines weren't built with speed as a consideration.

"And I noticed this. Compared to the Burlington, which I was familiar with, Milwaukee had taken a much more direct route. Lots of up-and-down compared to the Burlington's which had more side-to-side. Milwaukee was more of a land route, Burlington was more of a water route. Not that much difference in total route miles, but I saw this clearly when we did the Sprint analysis. They can't beat us. We had operating options there. We could run slower trains that plodded along, or we could power up. You don't want a lot of grades, unless there is an advantage to it. Here there was. It gave us much less curvature than our competitors. That's one thing about grades, you can power through them. You can't power through curvature. Good luck if you try.

"And these days, you couldn't really afford to re-engineer these curvey mainlines, its expensive, Army Corps of Engineers is all over you, you're stuck between highways and the water.

"So, we had a solution that our competitors did not have. The double track was important, but more important was the fact we had the option of adding power if we needed speed. And if we didn't need speed, we didn't add the power. We had good options from an operational standpoint, options that our competitors simply did not have. They could not outrun us. We could beat the Interstate on that run. Milwaukee could offer a service on premium traffic and no one was going to undercut us. We went ahead with the Sprints.

"What was interesting is that we didn't take much traffic away from our rail competitors.You can't take what they don't have. Railroads had lost the premum traffic to the truckers years before. We went to the Post Office, they signed on. Yellow Truck came to us. As word got out, shippers wanted this service. So, most of what we got came off of the highways. We were bringing a high quality market back to the railroads.

"Because we had that mainline."

Smith didn't know this, but Milwaukee's Chief Engineer had probably designed more mainline than just about anyone else, having served at Milwaukee from the 1860s through the completion of the Pacific Extension. He had designed most of that Chicago--Twin Cities mainline. What was striking to me from Smith's perspective was that the Western Extension followed the philosophy in route design -- a philosphy that differed from other railroad engineers of his era -- as that of Milwaukee Road Chief Engineer D. J. Whittemore, who was in fact Chief Engineer for the extension.

This is why GN could not put a train on the track as fast as Milwaukee's #261 and #262 under contemporaneous circumstances.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[arbfbe]

nanaimo, perhaps I can help out until Mr. Sol has time to get back to us.

1) Yes, that looks like the Benowah bridge with an eastbound freight. The Milwaukee took delivery of units in this paint for the FT, F5 and early F7 units, later F7 and FP7 units were in the classic orange and maroon.

2) The MILW purchased the Gallatin Valley Electric which was electrified between Gallatin Gateway and Bozeman and perhaps on towards Menard. The MILW connecting line from Three Forks and Bozeman Hot Springs was never electrified and when interurban service was discontinued by the GVE all the wire was removed from the lines.

3) The 8 air hoses on the front of the Joes allow them to mu with each other and diesels. The control the locomotive air brakes. Facing the unit from the left there is a sand hose, independent application & release hose, actuating hose and main reservoir hose. Then there is a trainline air hose near the drawbar. Next is another main reservoir hose, an actuating hose, independent application & release hose and a sand hose. All the hoses on both sides do not need to be connected, just one side or a combination from both sides is enough. Both sand hoses need to be connected if you want front and rear sand to work. The sand hoses have been replaced by electric sanding control via the mu cable.

[Anonymous]

Bob, you inadvertenly made a typo. Obviously, your last post was directed at VerMontanan, who makes a habit of personal attacks and obfuscation of the issues. Otherwise, you last post makes no sense.

[nanaimo73]

Mark Meyer-
1-Could you please tell me the length of the Flathead tunnel, in feet ?
2-Is there any information on the Flathead tunnel line project on the web ?
3-How about doing an article on it for Trains (or CTC Board) ?

Michael Sol-
1-Is this an eastbound about to enter the Benewah Tunnel #40 ?
www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=83226
1a-When did they stop using this scheme ?
2-Was the line to Gallatin Gateway electrified ?
3-Why were there up to 8 air hoses on the front of a Little Joe ?

[VerMontanan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Michael Sol’s dwelling on the 2.2% grades of the Great Northern, applicable only to Stevens Pass also suggests that this was the only location worth discussing along that route.

This is interesting because this one of the reasons you were put on moderated status on the Milwaukee History group. You had detailed your standard list of arduous comparisons between Milwaukee and GN, which has been on ogoing obsession with you. Your lengthy list of comparisons did not include the SPS route, which made sense at the time because the conversation was exclusively about grade comparisons on main lines to Seattle. As usual, as soon as something comes up which calls innto question your assumptions -- a key point being that actual traffic flows have "some" consideration, and upon this ground GN traffic faced obstacles Milwaukee traffic did not -- you change the conversation to something else, kind of along the lines of "Oh yeah, well what about ...?"

Well it may satisfying to you to argue in this fashion, consistenly, it never really seems to shed much light on your original contentions.

Maybe that's the point.

Incidentally, the "superior" route from Spokane to Portland was not SP&S, but Milwaukee/UP via Marengo.

Best regards, Michael Sol

The Milwaukee/UP via Marengo? The Milwaukee had nothing to do with it. It was all UP. On top of that, I am not aware of MILW advertising (or running) connecting freight and passenger service to/from Portland this UP route as the GN and NP did on THEIR railroad, the SP&S. In fact, when Milwaukee finally received trackage rights into Portland on BN, they ran all their traffic via their route via Tacoma. Certainly, if the MILW had anything to do with the UP line to Portland they would have chosen to run it that way rather than battle the grades over the Saddle Mountains and Snoqualmie Pass and Tacoma Hill. Additionally, after the Olympian Hiawatha was discontinued in 1961, the MILW very seldom (if ever) used the UP track between Spokane and Marengo, opting for access via its branch from Plummer Jct. to Manito, then running on the UP into Spokane on the east side. Toward the end of the Pacific Extension, the MILW didn't even show the line from Spokane to Marengo on its map.

Mr. Sol seems to have a problem with the SP&S route, that's for sure, even though it is well known that GN and NP moved much tonnage over this subsidiary. In the same forum that Mr. Sol in which Mr. Sol claimed I was moderated, he also claimed that BNSF is losing money moving unit trains via the ex-SP&S route (basically level) and that GN and NP passenger trains never served Portland via this route. So, go figure.

As for MY obsession, well, I'll just say at least my previous post dwelled on facts which are supported by real, live (and still working) ex-MILW employees. I've still never seen any proof that the 2% climb to Pipestone Pass required less power than the 1.2% ride over Marias, or that the 1.7% percent ascent of the Bitterroots at St. Paul Pass was more level than the track along the Kootenai River, and I doubt I ever will.

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Michael Sol’s dwelling on the 2.2% grades of the Great Northern, applicable only to Stevens Pass also suggests that this was the only location worth discussing along that route.

This is interesting because this one of the reasons you were put on moderated status on the Milwaukee History group. You had detailed your standard list of arduous comparisons between Milwaukee and GN, which has been on ogoing obsession with you. Your lengthy list of comparisons did not include the SPS route, which made sense at the time because the conversation was exclusively about grade comparisons on main lines to Seattle. As usual, as soon as something comes up which calls innto question your assumptions -- a key point being that actual traffic flows have "some" consideration, and upon this ground GN traffic faced obstacles Milwaukee traffic did not -- you change the conversation to something else, kind of along the lines of "Oh yeah, well what about ...?"

Well it may satisfying to you to argue in this fashion, consistenly, it never really seems to shed much light on your original contentions.

Maybe that's the point.

Incidentally, the "superior" route from Spokane to Portland was not SP&S, but Milwaukee/UP via Marengo.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Why do you so consistently attack people rather than their facts, ideas or opinions?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally uttered by VerMontana
Of course, railroads do not routinely create a situation where each train would have to double the hill, but this indicates that the MILW routing would be dramatically more time consuming if done this way. In reality, more power is assigned, either road power or helper power, and more such power (and crews) is necessary, and a greater associated cost.

I ran this one past a Milwaukee VPO {some time ago after something like was published by this source earlier).

"Well, that does sound like the way BN would have done things. They spent a lot of time taking engines on and off. Milwaukee liked to have the power to move trains. Overall, with better acceleration available, we could make better time at all locations. It would have been tough for us to do things this way [using the BN approach] since we used rolling crew changes on our fast trains."

As one retired BN Dispatcher, familiar with Milwaukee operations (which, oddly enough for someone with so many opinions on it VerMontana is not), told VerMontana, and I am paraphrasing, "all in all, the way the Milwaukee handled its power assignments out West made more sense than the way BN did it."

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Michael Sol’s dwelling on the 2.2% grades of the Great Northern, applicable only to Stevens Pass also suggests that this was the only location worth discussing along that route.

This is interesting because this one of the reasons you were put on moderated status on the Milwaukee History group. You had detailed your standard list of arduous comparisons between Milwaukee and GN, which has been on ogoing obsession with you. Your lengthy list of comparisons did not include the SPS route, which made sense at the time because the conversation was exclusively about grade comparisons on main lines to Seattle. As usual, as soon as something comes up which calls into question your assumptions -- a key point being that actual traffic flows have "some" consideration, and upon this ground GN traffic faced obstacles Milwaukee traffic did not -- you change the conversation to something else, kind of along the lines of "Oh yeah, well what about ...?"

Well it may satisfying to you to argue in this fashion, consistenly, it never really seems to shed much light on your original contentions.

Maybe that's the point.

Incidentally, the "superior" route from Spokane to Portland was not SP&S, but Milwaukee/UP via Marengo.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[wctransfer]

The milwaukee rust bucket you say? Oh yes. the ones that are now SOO, and CP! Lol, sorry i couldnt resist.

Alec

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

Trains once ran an article saying Casey Jones caused his fatal accident at Vaugn, MS. Beebe responded that mere facts were immaterial.

Dave you are the Milwaukee's Beebe.

It has been factually established that the Milwaukee's demise stemmed from it's failed attempt to merge with CNW, in which maintenance was deferred to make the balance sheet acceptable to CNW stockholders. It is also a statement of fact that the two best northern transcons were the GN/SP&S (grades) and the Milwaukee (mileage), while the two worst were/are the UP and NP. The latter shows the fallacy of the "best grades beget absolute longevity" argument as put forth by MM and MH.

It is your side that renders facts immaterial, partaking in history revision as a form of addiction.

Congratulations Bob. You've just been inducted into the Fraternal Order of the Ilks.

[Murphy Siding]

bobwilcox: ditto on the J. Hendrix comment![:)]. The Liberty Valance "Theory": When the legend becomes the accepted truth, print the legend.