Montana Coal and the Milwaukee Road

[Anonymous]

Re: 1. I vaguely recall the Milwaukee did originate a unit coal train from Montana to a utility at the South Dakota/Minnesota border. Something like that. The hoppers had lids that would swing open as the train was loading. Don't know if this service is still in effect.

[jeaton]

Gabe,
I have the 1921 Federal Valuation Maps which provide should provides the answers, but FIRST DDHS Vs. Cambridge HS Soccer. I'll get back later.

Jay

[Anonymous]

Gabe,

1. As tomtrain pointed out, the Milwaukee did run Montana coal to eastern South Dakota. It was this portion of the Milwaukee Pacific Coast Extension (from Terry MT acress South Dakota to Milbank) that was purchased by the state of South Dakota, and later sold to BNSF for continuation of this unit train activity.

If you don't have a rail atlas, you can somewhat retrace the Milwaukee's route across South Dakota and Montana by following U.S. Highway 12 in your road atlas. The Milwaukee route near Roundup MT comes real close to the Bull Mountain Mine which BNSF recently helped reopen. As far as I know, the Milwaukee never built a branch line into the PRB coal fields. If they had, they might still be alive today assuming they could have stayed around past 1980. PRB coal might not have saved the line to the Puget Sound, but it would have kept the company independent until it's inevitable merger with UP or BNSF.

2., 3., 4., and 5. When the Milwaukee came into the Puget Sound area, they obtained trackage rights over an existing railroad (I can't find my copy of "Milwaukee Road West" otherwise I could tell you!) They followed the Cedar River valley into Renton WA. The line split at Renton, the north line into Seattle and the South line down to Tacoma. They shared this line and passenger facilities in Seattle with the Union Pacific, right across from GN's/MP's King Street Station. The lines were all contiguous.

They had other trackage from Port Townsend to Port Angeles and a line from Bremerton (?) to the Canadian Border, both lines of which were reached by rail barge, and had obtained rights south as far as Longview WA. I'm not sure how much of this last line was Milwaukee trackage and how much was trackage rights. Someone else will have to fill us in.

[ericsp]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

They had other trackage from Port Townsend to Port Angeles and a line from Bremerton (?) to the Canadian Border, both lines of which were reached by rail barge, and had obtained rights south as far as Longview WA.

It appears that Bremerton is either on the Olympia Peninsula or on an island between the Olympia Peninsula and Seattle. To get to Canada from there, you would have to go south through the city of Olympia then go north, across the Puget Sound then go north, or across the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Could it have been Bellingham?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ericsp

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

They had other trackage from Port Townsend to Port Angeles and a line from Bremerton (?) to the Canadian Border, both lines of which were reached by rail barge, and had obtained rights south as far as Longview WA.

It appears that Bremerton is either on the Olympia Peninsula or on an island between the Olympia Peninsula and Seattle. To get to Canada from there, you would have to go south through the city of Olympia then go north, across the Puget Sound then go north, or across the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Could it have been Bellingham?

Yep, you're right, it is Bellingham, not Bremerton. My mistake.

[Anonymous]

Hello. As a former Milwaukee Road employee, I can add some information. The coal trains came from lignite mines at Gascoyne, North Dakota and went to a power plant near Milbank, South Dakota. While I was working in the division office in Aberdeen, we extended a number of sidings and did some work on the main track to prepare for the coal trains. I staked out the main line turnout at the power plant about 1973. We started running the trains about 1974.

I never worked on the west end and was not as familiar with it. I believe it as at Black River Junction where the line split to go to Seattle or Tacoma. As I recall we had a track to Longview, Washington. In the late 60's or early 70's we got trackage rights to Portland, over UP, I think.

[ericsp]

There was a thread where the cars that hauled the lignite were discussed. I think it was about rotary couplers.

[jeaton]

Gabe

Dave has this covered fairly well. I was trying to pull down some maps of the PRB that I could correlate with my MILW maps. It looks to me that the MILW swung over the northern end of the PRB and perhaps could have gone in there, but the timing was off.
PRB coal did not become attractive until the Clean Air Act, I think of the Mid '80s and by that time they were dust. Even if they had been able to hang on, they may have found themselves the third man in a two man game.

The trackage around Puget sound and to the west and south of Tacoma was a bit of a jumble of rights and joint trackage. For example Cedar Falls to Everett was MILW as was Cedar Falls to Maple Valley. Maple Vallely to Black River Jct was C&PS Ry (?&Puget Sound?) where it connected to the MILW owned to Seattle. The track south from Black River Jct to Tacoma Jct was joint owned with the OWRR& N Co. And so it goes. My charts show isolated trackage owned at Port Townsend, Eagle Harbor Port Blakeley and Bremerton, all appearantly served by car ferry.

The isolated Bellingham division consisted of 66.97 miles of main track and 24.13 other. Connections are shown and in addition to car ferry there could have been interchange with the GN at Bellingham and the CP and B.C. Electric Ry at the Canada Border. If they were getting a long haul off their lines up there or off the Canadian connections, I suspect that they would have had to move the traffic via car ferry. I would be surprised if GN would have allowed an open interchange for traffic from the MILW at Bellingham back to the MILW at Everett

I am sending you an Email on the source of this stuff.

Jay

[ericsp]

I saw a Milwaukee Road boxcar today.

[Anonymous]

I stumbled onto this wonderful website:

http://home.earthlink.net/~milwaukeeroadcoastdivisiondvd/

[athelney]

I believe the Milwaukee Road came up to the Canadian border interchange at Sumas WA . I seem to remember seeing an odd train there back in the mid 1970's when I first emigrated to Canada - although did not recognise the fact that they would soon be done away with . The border point is Sumas/ Huntingdon that joins up with the CP and what used to be BC Hydro railway .

[PNWRMNM]

Gabe,

Milw entry to Seattle was on the Pacific Coast Railroad/Railway, and a bit of UP to the depot. The Pacific Coast has a long and interesting history.

There is a recent excellent history of railroads serving Seattle by Kurt Armbruster but I can not recall the title.

Mac

[nanaimo73]

Thanks for the site tomtrain.[:)]

[MichaelSol]

Milwaukee Road purchased coal rights in 1906 in the Bull Mountains of Central Montana and operated the Republic Coal Co. near Roundup, Montana up until they sold the mines in 1954. Milwaukee Road's coal operations once produced nearly 30% of all coal produced in Montana.

This was supposed to be a very good quality bituminous coal, superior to the "brown dirt" that the NP mined at Colstrip. Aside from railroad service, Republic Coal offered a commercial service to various customers as well.

When the PCE was abandoned, one of the objections to abandonment was the loss of rail service to that large coal producing district at a key time in the national energy policy debate. As a result, coal development there has been hampered, but current projects are underway to exploit the old Milwaukee coal properties.

http://www.bullmountainenergy.com/Power/

This includes a new rail line, although I haven't heard anything about this project in quite some time.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MP173]

That is one HECK of a website.

I looked at it for 15 minutes and was shocked to find 90 minutes had passed by. I learned far more about the demise of the Milwaukee Road in those 90 minutes than the other thread.

ed

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cnwrwyman

Hello. As a former Milwaukee Road employee, I can add some information. The coal trains came from lignite mines at Gascoyne, North Dakota and went to a power plant near Milbank, South Dakota. While I was working in the division office in Aberdeen, we extended a number of sidings and did some work on the main track to prepare for the coal trains. I staked out the main line turnout at the power plant about 1973. We started running the trains about 1974.

I never worked on the west end and was not as familiar with it. I believe it as at Black River Junction where the line split to go to Seattle or Tacoma. As I recall we had a track to Longview, Washington. In the late 60's or early 70's we got trackage rights to Portland, over UP, I think.

How did the coal from Gascoyne get TO the Milwaukee lines? Over someone else's tracks, or over one of those branch lines into N.D. that were west of Mobridge?

Thanks

[nanaimo73]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by cnwrwyman

Hello. As a former Milwaukee Road employee, I can add some information. The coal trains came from lignite mines at Gascoyne, North Dakota and went to a power plant near Milbank, South Dakota. While I was working in the division office in Aberdeen, we extended a number of sidings and did some work on the main track to prepare for the coal trains. I staked out the main line turnout at the power plant about 1973. We started running the trains about 1974.

I never worked on the west end and was not as familiar with it. I believe it as at Black River Junction where the line split to go to Seattle or Tacoma. As I recall we had a track to Longview, Washington. In the late 60's or early 70's we got trackage rights to Portland, over UP, I think.

How did the coal from Gascoyne get TO the Milwaukee lines? Over someone else's tracks, or over one of those branch lines into N.D. that were west of Mobridge?

Thanks

The Knife River mine in North Dakota is just off the mainline at mile 949.2
http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=1&S=12&Z=13&X=813&Y=6387&W The Big Stone power plant started in 1975 north of Big Stone at mile 602.2
http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=1&S=12&Z=14&X=868&Y=6274&W

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by cnwrwyman

Hello. As a former Milwaukee Road employee, I can add some information. The coal trains came from lignite mines at Gascoyne, North Dakota and went to a power plant near Milbank, South Dakota. While I was working in the division office in Aberdeen, we extended a number of sidings and did some work on the main track to prepare for the coal trains. I staked out the main line turnout at the power plant about 1973. We started running the trains about 1974.

I never worked on the west end and was not as familiar with it. I believe it as at Black River Junction where the line split to go to Seattle or Tacoma. As I recall we had a track to Longview, Washington. In the late 60's or early 70's we got trackage rights to Portland, over UP, I think.

How did the coal from Gascoyne get TO the Milwaukee lines? Over someone else's tracks, or over one of those branch lines into N.D. that were west of Mobridge?

Thanks

The Knife River mine in North Dakota is just off the mainline at mile 949.2
http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=1&S=12&Z=13&X=813&Y=6387&W The Big Stone power plant started in 1975 north of Big Stone at mile 602.2
http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=1&S=12&Z=14&X=868&Y=6274&W

By Jiminy-there it is! I was thinkng Gascoyne was way up by Wiliston. After digging up a map, I see you're absolutely correct![:)]

[Anonymous]

Slightly off topic (but necessitated by the locking of the Milwaukee thread), was there ever any consideration given to daylighting Boylston tunnel? From the pictures it looks like there is relatively little in the way of overburden from the geographic summit to the railbed itself.

[arbfbe]

Some of the Bull Mountain coal has moved for export via the MRL. The coal is trucked to Lockwood, MT near Huntley Project where it is loaded into hopper cars for furthurence to Roberts Bank near Vancouver, BC. Currently the cogen power plant at Thompson Falls, MT is using a small supply of the coal to augment the burning of their wood chips. BNSF has a plan to construct a connection from their line at Broadview, MT to the mine should shipping quantities increase enough to warrant the expense of construction of the line. Some abandoned row exists at Broadview now.

Though this is high quality coal the mines are all underground and thus more costly to operate than the large open pit mines in the PRB.

MILW would have had two noteable options to tap the PRB Lignite coal if they had stayed in business. The most obvious would be construction of the planned Tongue River Railroad which would effectively short haul the CB&Q/NP routing of the BN for coal in the Decker, MT/Sheridan, WY area. This would follow the valley of the Tongue River south from the MILW mainline in the Miles City area. East of Miles City the MILW might have started construction on the abandoned right of way of the Wyoming - Montana North South Railroad which had plans to connect the Miles City area with central Wyoming and beyond. BN would have fought such incursion into their monopoly with vigor. This would have opened markets in the upper midwest and Kansas City to competition from the MILW. The southern end of the MILW service would have been at some disadvantage to the CB&Q routing via Lincoln, NE the BN enjoyed. I am sure the coal mines in the PRB and the power plants in the midwest would have been very supportive of an alternative MILW routing.

Thoughts for 09/14

Certainly the coal deposits are larger than just the Powder River Basin fields and indeed continue on north into Canada. Some of those areas straddling the MILW mainline could have been developed with the MILW becoming a major hauler to the upper midwest. Montana early on passed a coal severance tax to cushion itself against the boom and bust cycle of meneral production as well as to insure abandoned mines would be reclaimed when the wealth had been removed. The hard rock mining industry has left a long history of just walking away from toxic mine and mill sites leaving the state with tens of millions of dollars in work to do to make these sites safe again. Wyoming has not elected to impose this tax and their coal is more competitive in energy markets than Montana coal. This could have been a problem with coal along the MILW tracks.

[nanaimo73]

Dave-
I salvaged this thread before it expired. You can bring up any Milwaukee Road topic you want.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Slightly off topic (but necessitated by the locking of the Milwaukee thread), was there ever any consideration given to daylighting Boylston tunnel? From the pictures it looks like there is relatively little in the way of overburden from the geographic summit to the railbed itself.

Dave: I'm not really sure where the Boylston tunnel is, but reading about how money was spent for maintenance of snow sheds, if the tunnel was in a bad snowy area,maybe having a top was a "cheap" snow shed? Unless a tunnel is long enough to cause major smoke problems, what would be the advantage of daylighting a tunnel?

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Slightly off topic (but necessitated by the locking of the Milwaukee thread), was there ever any consideration given to daylighting Boylston tunnel? From the pictures it looks like there is relatively little in the way of overburden from the geographic summit to the railbed itself.

Dave: I'm not really sure where the Boylston tunnel is, but reading about how money was spent for maintenance of snow sheds, if the tunnel was in a bad snowy area,maybe having a top was a "cheap" snow shed? Unless a tunnel is long enough to cause major smoke problems, what would be the advantage of daylighting a tunnel?

Maintainence. Tunnels and bridges eat money faster then a 747 with indigestion.

[Murphy Siding]

Bridges I can see, but how does a tunnel eat up maintenance money?

[nanaimo73]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Slightly off topic (but necessitated by the locking of the Milwaukee thread), was there ever any consideration given to daylighting Boylston tunnel? From the pictures it looks like there is relatively little in the way of overburden from the geographic summit to the railbed itself.

Dave: I'm not really sure where the Boylston tunnel is, but reading about how money was spent for maintenance of snow sheds, if the tunnel was in a bad snowy area,maybe having a top was a "cheap" snow shed? Unless a tunnel is long enough to cause major smoke problems, what would be the advantage of daylighting a tunnel?

Boylston is in the center of Washington State west of the Columbia River and east of the Cascade Mountains, where most of the snow falls. The CMSP&P called it Johnson Creek tunnel #45. From Terraserver it looks like it would have been easy to daylight.
http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=1&S=11&Z=10&X=1777&Y=12996&W Soo Line talked about daylighting tunnel #1 in Wisconsin during the early 1990's.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mark_W._Hemphill

The big problems are lining maintenance and replacement and drainage. Many tunnels are drains for the local groundwater and thus are constantly soaking wet, which means that track alignment is a constant battle, and track structure (ties, rail, signal lines) fall apart rapidly.

And when something really bad happens, like a lining fire, it not only costs a fortune to repair it, the line is closed for days or weeks, which means the ENTIRE line on which it lies earns not a penny. A single good-sized tunnel problem can easily cost $100 million in repairs and lost earnings. Just adding up the tunnel problems I can think of in a few seconds on SP and former SP lines in the last 30 years -- Searls, Island Mountain (twice), Siskiyou Summit, Tunnel No. Whatever in the Cascades last year, these tunnels have cost more than $300 million (in 2005 dollars) in emergency repairs and lost earnings.

A lining fire![:0] Holy cow! I thought they were lined with concrete or clay. There must be some wood involved. I see what you mean by the water problem.

Thanks

[Anonymous]

Boylston tunnel cuts under the Saddle Mountains, completely desert country, little if any snow problems. It is my opinion that it would have been an excellent candidate for daylighting based on the east and west portal pictures I've seen.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Boylston tunnel cuts under the Saddle Mountains, completely desert country, little if any snow problems. It is my opinion that it would have been an excellent candidate for daylighting based on the east and west portal pictures I've seen.

Which brings up the question: Why didn't they daylight the cut originally? Wouldn't that have been easier than a tunnel to start with?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Boylston tunnel cuts under the Saddle Mountains, completely desert country, little if any snow problems. It is my opinion that it would have been an excellent candidate for daylighting based on the east and west portal pictures I've seen.

Which brings up the question: Why didn't they daylight the cut originally? Wouldn't that have been easier than a tunnel to start with?

I'm not sure when daylighting tunnels came into vogue, I would guess when construction equipment evolved into the massive machines they are today. Back in the pick and shovel days, it would have taken years to perform such a task.

[Murphy Siding]

Clay? I think I meant plaster,maybe?[:I] In your example above, it would have*only* taken the 2 steam shovels about 7-8 years to dig it out.[;)]. I think that would be called job security, for the shovel operators.

Thanks

[PNWRMNM]

I can suggest two reasons why they never daylighted Boyleston Tunnel. No need and no money.

While I have not walked or rode through the tunnel I am familiar with the local geology. The tunnel is in basalt rock. Basalt is a very hard material and will hold a virtually vertical face for thousands of years. The tunnel was only in use about 70 years, a blink of the geological eye. I suspect the tunnel is unlined, as was the one on the GN Mansfield branch also in basalt, which I have both walked and rode through.

The Milwaukee went bankrupt three times in the 20th century. They did not have money for necessities, let alone daylighting a tunnel in hard solid rock just for the entertainment value of it.

Mac

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

I can suggest two reasons why they never daylighted Boyleston Tunnel. No need and no money.

While I have not walked or rode through the tunnel I am familiar with the local geology. The tunnel is in basalt rock. Basalt is a very hard material and will hold a virtually vertical face for thousands of years. The tunnel was only in use about 70 years, a blink of the geological eye. I suspect the tunnel is unlined, as was the one on the GN Mansfield branch also in basalt, which I have both walked and rode through.

The Milwaukee went bankrupt three times in the 20th century. They did not have money for necessities, let alone daylighting a tunnel in hard solid rock just for the entertainment value of it.

Mac

The question wasn't why didn't they daylight Boylston, it is did they ever consider daylighting Boylston.

Basalt tends to be columnar, and can fracture easily. And of all the reasons railroads daylight tunnels, I doubt any of them do so "just for the entertainment value of it."

[Murphy Siding]

I find entertainment value just in contemplating the idea of daylighting a tunnel just for the entertainment value of it![:-,]. I would suspect that the Milwaukee * entertained* the idea from time to time.[}:)]

[MichaelSol]

I think what was meant is that daylighting would have had to have been for entertainment value because in this particular instance, the tunnel was extremely dry, the rock extremely hard, it was relatively short, there was no timber cribbing or lining.

If ever there was a tunnel for which daylighting made no sense, Boylston was it.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[nanaimo73]

Michael
Do you know what year the PCE opened for tri-level autoracks ?
Do you know the clearance, 19' ?
Did many autos get damaged by the current jumping from the catenary to antennas ?
Why was the WSS&YP shown on CMSP&P maps ? Did the Milwaukee own the ROW and lease it to the WSS&YP ?
Was the spur just west of Roundup to Klein a source of steam locomotive coal ?
What is your favorite book on the CMSP&P ?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

Michael
Do you know what year the PCE opened for tri-level autoracks ?
Do you know the clearance, 19' ?
Did many autos get damaged by the current jumping from the catenary to antennas ?
Why was the WSS&YP shown on CMSP&P maps ? Did the Milwaukee own the ROW and lease it to the WSS&YP ?
Was the spur just west of Roundup to Klein a source of steam locomotive coal ?
What is your favorite book on the CMSP&P ?

The line was available for trilevel Autoracks beginning in October, 1963. The typical tunnel clearance below the trolley was approximately 20+ feet. There wasn't much chance of arcing on the DC system. What happened early on was auto antennae being left in the "up" position on the third level. ZAP! The solution was easy. Of course, after the covered autocarriers entered service, there was no problem.

Milwaukee owned the WSS&YP and leased it. In turn the lessee leased the equipment from MILW.

I seem to remember the Klein spur was east of Roundup. I'll have to check when I get home. It's been a while.

For books, there isn't really a significantly good historical book. Derleth's book "The Milwaukee Road, the First hundred Years," has good writing. Derleth was a good writer. But historical research was not his forte', and the book repeats a number of very significant errors in the historical record.

I used to consider "The Investor Pays," by Max Lowenthal as a model of investigatory writing into important railroad finance and history. However, after spending a week reviewing Lowenthal's working papers for the book, I changed my opinon considerably. Interestingly, one of his contentions, that the Milwaukee receivership of 1925 was not a "real" receivership, but contrived as a means of obtaining control by a special interest group, is much more strongly supported by the statistcal record than Lowenthal imagined.

Noel Holley's "The Milwaukee's Mighty Electrics," is very well done. Fred Hyde's book, "The Milwaukee Road," is likewise a very enjoyable book, and while primarily photographic, spent more than the usual amount of time obtaining knowledgeable and informed photo cutlines. Both of these gentlemen produced the "best of the best," as far as Milwaukee Road books that are "out there."

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

I neglected to mention, and should have mentioned, "The Electric Way Across the Mountains," by Richard Steinheimer, soon to be re-released, which is a first class book by any measure.

Personal favorites: "The Olympian: a Ride to Remember," by Stanley Johnson, and Stan's "Milwaukee Road Revisited."

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

I think what was meant is that daylighting would have had to have been for entertainment value because in this particular instance, the tunnel was extremely dry, the rock extremely hard, it was relatively short, there was no timber cribbing or lining.

If ever there was a tunnel for which daylighting made no sense, Boylston was it.

Best regards, Michael Sol

I take it then that after the wires came down, either the length of a little less than 1/2 mile did not affect the O2 supply of mid-train helpers, or Milwaukee never had occassion to use pushers and midtrain helpers here after de-electrification? (You may have answered in the Milwaukee thread, but I ain't going back through that compilation!)

BTW, did Boylston have a grade westbound or eastbound, or was it essentially flat?

[VerMontanan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

(1) I once remember someone saying something to the effect of "had Montana's coal been in Oklahoma rather than Montana the CB&Q would have gone the way of the Rock and the Rock would have done quite well.

I know that the majority of Montana coal is in the Powder River Basin, but I don't know the full geographic extent of this basin. So, did the Milwaukee Road's Pudget Sound extension come anywhere close to this coal, and if so, how close was the Milwaukee Road to missing the traffic boom, and finally, could this coal have saved the Milwaukee Road?

It's important to remember that while the Rock Island went bankrupt, it did not go away, or at least not to the extent of some other railroads. Perhaps the biggest portion which is abandoned are large portions of its Tucumcari to Memphis line (and I suspect that BNSF wishes it had this rather than the route it uses between Amarillo and Memphis now), but when one sees that Houston to Minneapolis, the "Golden State" route to Santa Rosa, NM and Chicago to Council Bluffs remains in use, sometimes well-used, it can be said that much of the Rock Island still lives today.

The former Milwaukee line across South Dakota still hosts one loaded coal train, destined for the plant in Big Stone City, SD. These trains usually originate in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and are routed via Sheridan and Forsyth. However, no through coal trains use this route. Coal trains loaded in the Sheridan, Wyoming area (Decker, Montana) destined for the Twin Cities operate via ex-NP line across North Dakota; trains loaded in the Gillette area and on the Orin Line destined for the Twin Cities usually operate through Alliance and Lincoln, NE, then north through Sioux City and Willmar.

I've always thought it odd that the former MILW line was not used for through coal trains. Granted, the improvements made since the late 1970s along the ex-NP line provide it with greater capacity, but this route requires much more power than the ex-MILW line. Today, nearly every coal train east out of Glendive has a manned helper at least as far as Fryburg, ND. (Though they have been tried on occasion, distributed power is not regularly used east of Glendive.) The Big Stone trains do run with distributed power, due to their size.

The main advantage of the ex-NP route is that it better accesses where the coal is going....for right now, anyway....places like Stanton, ND, Fargo, Grand Forks, Hoot Lake, MN, Cohasset, MN, Virginia, MN, Becker, MN, and of course, Superior, WI. Another reason for the NP route being used is that the power for the coal trains is maintained at the ex-NP roundhouse at Glendive, Montana.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

[quote
I take it then that after the wires came down, either the length of a little less than 1/2 mile did not affect the O2 supply of mid-train helpers, or Milwaukee never had occassion to use pushers and midtrain helpers here after de-electrification? (You may have answered in the Milwaukee thread, but I ain't going back through that compilation!)

BTW, did Boylston have a grade westbound or eastbound, or was it essentially flat?

Tunnel No. 75, Johnson Creek Tunnel, is 1783' long. Coming from the east, a 2% grade gradually begins to level out about a half mile from the tunnel, is 0% about mid-way through the tunnel, and begins a gradual descent which turns into a 1% descending grade, then 1.6% about a half mile west of the west portal of the tunnel.

Helpers were abolished after June 15, 1974, however, for a period of a very few days in 1978, helpers were stationed at Beverly to assist some heavy wheat trains which were underpowered because of a system-wide power shortage that summer.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

Was the spur just west of Roundup to Klein a source of steam locomotive coal ?

You were right. "Mine #3 Spur" was west of Roundup, about a mile west of the Roundup Depot.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by VerMontanan

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

(1) I once remember someone saying something to the effect of "had Montana's coal been in Oklahoma rather than Montana the CB&Q would have gone the way of the Rock and the Rock would have done quite well.

I know that the majority of Montana coal is in the Powder River Basin, but I don't know the full geographic extent of this basin. So, did the Milwaukee Road's Pudget Sound extension come anywhere close to this coal, and if so, how close was the Milwaukee Road to missing the traffic boom, and finally, could this coal have saved the Milwaukee Road?

It's important to remember that while the Rock Island went bankrupt, it did not go away, or at least not to the extent of some other railroads. Perhaps the biggest portion which is abandoned are large portions of its Tucumcari to Memphis line (and I suspect that BNSF wishes it had this rather than the route it uses between Amarillo and Memphis now), but when one sees that Houston to Minneapolis, the "Golden State" route to Santa Rosa, NM and Chicago to Council Bluffs remains in use, sometimes well-used, it can be said that much of the Rock Island still lives today.

The former Milwaukee line across South Dakota still hosts one loaded coal train, destined for the plant in Big Stone City, SD. These trains usually originate in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and are routed via Sheridan and Forsyth. However, no through coal trains use this route. Coal trains loaded in the Sheridan, Wyoming area (Decker, Montana) destined for the Twin Cities operate via ex-NP line across North Dakota; trains loaded in the Gillette area and on the Orin Line destined for the Twin Cities usually operate through Alliance and Lincoln, NE, then north through Sioux City and Willmar.

I've always thought it odd that the former MILW line was not used for through coal trains. Granted, the improvements made since the late 1970s along the ex-NP line provide it with greater capacity, but this route requires much more power than the ex-MILW line. Today, nearly every coal train east out of Glendive has a manned helper at least as far as Fryburg, ND. (Though they have been tried on occasion, distributed power is not regularly used east of Glendive.) The Big Stone trains do run with distributed power, due to their size.

The main advantage of the ex-NP route is that it better accesses where the coal is going....for right now, anyway....places like Stanton, ND, Fargo, Grand Forks, Hoot Lake, MN, Cohasset, MN, Virginia, MN, Becker, MN, and of course, Superior, WI. Another reason for the NP route being used is that the power for the coal trains is maintained at the ex-NP roundhouse at Glendive, Montana.

I've always thought it was weird that my electricity is produced 200 miles east of my house, using coal from 500 miles west of my house,yet, the coal travels either around S.D. to the north, or the south, to get from point A to point B.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

I've always thought it was weird that my electricity is produced 200 miles east of my house, using coal from 500 miles west of my house,yet, the coal travels either around S.D. to the north, or the south, to get from point A to point B.

Your time is coming. The DM&E will eventually give you a closer look at the whole process.

[Anonymous]

On another one of those "may have already been answered some time ago" questions, I have read where one of the MIlwaukee's board members (a guy named Rockefeller) had pushed for the original PCE project to be a joint effort between the Milwaukee and CNW. At the time of the onset of Milwaukee's PCE construction, what was the farthest westward extent of the CNW line through South Dakota, and would a joint venture have necessitated a more southerly starting point in southwestern SD? If so, wouldn't that have put a CMStP&P/CNW PCE right through the northern portion of Wyoming's PRB?

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

I've always thought it was weird that my electricity is produced 200 miles east of my house, using coal from 500 miles west of my house,yet, the coal travels either around S.D. to the north, or the south, to get from point A to point B.

Your time is coming. The DM&E will eventually give you a closer look at the whole process.

The DM&E can't raise any money. Its just another pie in the sky scheme.

[PNWRMNM]

Bob,

Why is that?

Mac

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

Bob,

Why is that?

Mac

I assume it it because lenders don't think it is a good business risk. It has been some time since the STB gave the DM&E a regulatory green light. I'm sure the DM&E has given Power Point presentations all over the world but still no financing.

Looking back before 1920 the habit of every railroad in the area rushing to a new mineral discovery was usually a disaster. Each new entry would come in, cut prices and every one would go broke. A classic example was Leadville, CO with three railroads. This was why railroads were advocates for requiring a showing of Public Convenience and Necessity in the Transportation Act of 1920. They wanted to stop "runinous competition" from too many rail carriers. The abandoment side of the same coin came to the fore with the rise of highway competition.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

On another one of those "may have already been answered some time ago" questions, I have read where one of the MIlwaukee's board members (a guy named Rockefeller) had pushed for the original PCE project to be a joint effort between the Milwaukee and CNW. At the time of the onset of Milwaukee's PCE construction, what was the farthest westward extent of the CNW line through South Dakota, and would a joint venture have necessitated a more southerly starting point in southwestern SD? If so, wouldn't that have put a CMStP&P/CNW PCE right through the northern portion of Wyoming's PRB?

The Milwaukee had undertaken tentative exploration surveys, in 1900, for a line to either San Francisco, Portland, or the Puget Sound. In 1901, Milwaukee Chairman Roswell Miller and the new President of the Milwaukee, Albert Earling, had agreed to dispatch surveyors west to determine the costs of building a transcontinental line to the coast, using the Northern Pacific as a model.

Board member William Rockefeller allegedly believed that the Milwaukee should build to the southwest, toward California. Earling and Miller were cool to that idea, believing that, because of its location, Seattle was destined to become the premier shipping port on the coast, simply because it was closest to the Orient and Alaska. There may be some doubt expressed about Rockefeller’s desire to built southwest. Rogers and Rockefeller were in the process of completing their buyout of the Anaconda copper properties in Butte in 1901, and as early as April of that year, Rockefeller voted to authorize a railroad survey from Evarts to Butte, and an alternative survey route from Chamberlain, through Deadwood, to Butte. No Minutes of the Milwaukee Board of Directors suggested construction to California.

These railroad surveys were authorized a matter of days after the Northern Securities dust-up had failed to secure control of the Northern Pacific.

However, E.H. Harriman and the Milwaukee then entered into a joint-use contract of the Union Pacific system. This would have allowed the Milwaukee Road to run its own passenger and freight trains over Union Pacific lines to the coast. The contract, dated October 7, 1902, was between the Milwaukee and the Union Pacific, Southern Pacific, Oregon Short Line, and the Oregon Railroad & Navigation Company. It opened up the Milwaukee’s passenger and freight traffic through Omaha and Kansas City, “granting to this company the option of through car service for both passengers and freight; agreeing that the service shall be equal in all respects to the highest class if similar service conducted by either of the parties jointly with any other connecting carrier; that the rates of charge for transportation service, and the facilities employed and provided for the purpose of soliciting, carrying and delivering traffic, and the means used to advertise the through line shall be equal in all respects to those made by either of the parties."

However, this agreement, quite novel for its time, proved unsatisfactory to Miller. He had a tremendous distrust of Harriman, and within three weeks of the agreement, observed that "everything depended upon the good faith of the Union Pacific road, in carrying out the contract." Two weeks after that, he had apparently concluded that the Union Pacific could not be trusted to honor its agreement. A quarter of a century later, Percy Rockefeller, William's son, told the Interstate Commerce Commission that he did not believe that "the Union Pacific ever quite played fair with the St. Paul in that connection."

In 1904, the Company purchased land for terminal facilities in Tacoma and Seattle. The dissolution of the Northern Securities Company seemed to provide an opportunity to again acquire control of the Northern Pacific, but the U.S. Supreme Court approved a Morgan plan of stock distribution which effectively stymied any possibility of control or even influence. This opinion was handed down in March, 1905 and published during the first part of April, 1905. As a result, on April 27, 1905, the Board of Directors appointed a committee consisting of Peter Geddes, H.H. Rogers and Roswell Miller to acquire the right of way for the “Pacific Extension.” Rogers was a Standard Oil officer, and President of the Anaconda Copper Mining Co.. Geddes was a Director of the Union Pacific.

The Pacific Railway Co., a Milwaukee subsidiary, was already building facilities in the Tacoma area, and was directed to complete construction of its Tacoma terminal facilities and Puget Sound rail lines.

In July, 1905, Rockefeller discussed with W. K. Vanderbilt of the Chicago & Northwestern the prospects of a joint line to the coast. After the Milwaukee's experience with the Union Pacific, Miller was not favorable to joint operations.
On November 4, 1905, Miller advised Earling that Rockefeller had finally agreed with Miller's view, and that arrangements for construction should commence. This wasn't true; Rockefeller was still in discussions with Vanderbilt. The Milwaukee Board, under Miller's influence and Rockefeller's absence in Europe, approved the construction of the Pacific Extension.

Rockefeller was pretty much paying for the project out of his own pocket, which he did, but he clearly had wanted to share the burden with another railroad, and also gain the benefits of joint transcontinental traffic. He could see that the CBQ/GN/NP tie-up was backwards. The then-relatively thin traffic on the transcontinentals was shared with the midwestern line, and the transcontinental traffic generated by the midwestern line split between the two parents. What made more sense was two midwestern carriers operating a transcontinental line. Each would contribute to the transcontinental traffic making a much healthier transcontinental system. That's what Rockefeller was attempting.

Advised of Miller's actions, Rockefeller blew a gasket and threatened to fire Miller as Chairman. But, the project was underway.

William Rockefeller was the co-founder, with his brother John D., of the Standard Oil Company.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

Bob,

Why is that?

Mac

I assume it it because lenders don't think it is a good business risk. It has been some time since the STB gave the DM&E a regulatory green light. I'm sure the DM&E has given Power Point presentations all over the world but still no financing.

Looking back before 1920 the habit of every railroad in the area rushing to a new mineral discovery was usually a disaster. Each new entry would come in, cut prices and every one would go broke. A classic example was Leadville, CO with three railroads. This was why railroads were advocates for requiring a showing of Public Convenience and Necessity in the Transportation Act of 1920. They wanted to stop "runinous competition" from too many rail carriers. The abandoment side of the same coin came to the fore with the rise of highway competition.

I will agree with Bob on this. I just don't the numbers work to get financing.

[Anonymous]

Regarding DM&E, I see things swinging in their favor. BNSF and UP have shown that they cannot keep up with coal delivery demands, future power generation clearly favors coal over natural gas and "renewables", and the recent spike in energy prices has forced the feds to consider more options for ensuring adequate supplies.

Most energy analysts now see that an abortion of the DM&E project would have negative implications for future power supply capabilities.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

On another one of those "may have already been answered some time ago" questions, I have read where one of the MIlwaukee's board members (a guy named Rockefeller) had pushed for the original PCE project to be a joint effort between the Milwaukee and CNW. At the time of the onset of Milwaukee's PCE construction, what was the farthest westward extent of the CNW line through South Dakota, and would a joint venture have necessitated a more southerly starting point in southwestern SD? If so, wouldn't that have put a CMStP&P/CNW PCE right through the northern portion of Wyoming's PRB?

The Milwaukee had undertaken tentative exploration surveys, in 1900, for a line to either San Francisco, Portland, or the Puget Sound. In 1901, Milwaukee Chairman Roswell Miller and the new President of the Milwaukee, Albert Earling, had agreed to dispatch surveyors west to determine the costs of building a transcontinental line to the coast, using the Northern Pacific as a model.

Board member William Rockefeller allegedly believed that the Milwaukee should build to the southwest, toward California. Earling and Miller were cool to that idea, believing that, because of its location, Seattle was destined to become the premier shipping port on the coast, simply because it was closest to the Orient and Alaska. There may be some doubt expressed about Rockefeller’s desire to built southwest. Rogers and Rockefeller were in the process of completing their buyout of the Anaconda copper properties in Butte in 1901, and as early as April of that year, Rockefeller voted to authorize a railroad survey from Evarts to Butte, and an alternative survey route from Chamberlain, through Deadwood, to Butte. No Minutes of the Milwaukee Board of Directors suggested construction to California.

These railroad surveys were authorized a matter of days after the Northern Securities dust-up had failed to secure control of the Northern Pacific.

However, E.H. Harriman and the Milwaukee then entered into a joint-use contract of the Union Pacific system. This would have allowed the Milwaukee Road to run its own passenger and freight trains over Union Pacific lines to the coast. The contract, dated October 7, 1902, was between the Milwaukee and the Union Pacific, Southern Pacific, Oregon Short Line, and the Oregon Railroad & Navigation Company. It opened up the Milwaukee’s passenger and freight traffic through Omaha and Kansas City, “granting to this company the option of through car service for both passengers and freight; agreeing that the service shall be equal in all respects to the highest class if similar service conducted by either of the parties jointly with any other connecting carrier; that the rates of charge for transportation service, and the facilities employed and provided for the purpose of soliciting, carrying and delivering traffic, and the means used to advertise the through line shall be equal in all respects to those made by either of the parties."

However, this agreement, quite novel for its time, proved unsatisfactory to Miller. He had a tremendous distrust of Harriman, and within three weeks of the agreement, observed that "everything depended upon the good faith of the Union Pacific road, in carrying out the contract." Two weeks after that, he had apparently concluded that the Union Pacific could not be trusted to honor its agreement. A quarter of a century later, Percy Rockefeller, William's son, told the Interstate Commerce Commission that he did not believe that "the Union Pacific ever quite played fair with the St. Paul in that connection."

In 1904, the Company purchased land for terminal facilities in Tacoma and Seattle. The dissolution of the Northern Securities Company seemed to provide an opportunity to again acquire control of the Northern Pacific, but the U.S. Supreme Court approved a Morgan plan of stock distribution which effectively stymied any possibility of control or even influence. This opinion was handed down in March, 1905 and published during the first part of April, 1905. As a result, on April 27, 1905, the Board of Directors appointed a committee consisting of Peter Geddes, H.H. Rogers and Roswell Miller to acquire the right of way for the “Pacific Extension.” Rogers was a Standard Oil officer, and President of the Anaconda Copper Mining Co.. Geddes was a Director of the Union Pacific.

The Pacific Railway Co., a Milwaukee subsidiary, was already building facilities in the Tacoma area, and was directed to complete construction of its Tacoma terminal facilities and Puget Sound rail lines.

In July, 1905, Rockefeller discussed with W. K. Vanderbilt of the Chicago & Northwestern the prospects of a joint line to the coast. After the Milwaukee's experience with the Union Pacific, Miller was not favorable to joint operations.
On November 4, 1905, Miller advised Earling that Rockefeller had finally agreed with Miller's view, and that arrangements for construction should commence. This wasn't true; Rockefeller was still in discussions with Vanderbilt. The Milwaukee Board, under Miller's influence and Rockefeller's absence in Europe, approved the construction of the Pacific Extension.

Rockefeller was pretty much paying for the project out of his own pocket, which he did, but he clearly had wanted to share the burden with another railroad, and also gain the benefits of joint transcontinental traffic. He could see that the CBQ/GN/NP tie-up was backwards. The then-relatively thin traffic on the transcontinentals was shared with the midwestern line, and the transcontinental traffic generated by the midwestern line split between the two parents. What made more sense was two midwestern carriers operating a transcontinental line. Each would contribute to the transcontinental traffic making a much healthier transcontinental system. That's what Rockefeller was attempting.

Advised of Miller's actions, Rockefeller blew a gasket and threatened to fire Miller as Chairman. But, the project was underway.

William Rockefeller was the co-founder, with his brother John D., of the Standard Oil Company.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Thanks again, Michael. None of the railfan-type history texts have that level of detail.

I know where Chamberlain is, so that must be where the farthest westward extent of the Milwaukee truncated at the time, but where is Evarts? What was the farthest westward extent of the CNW at the time?

If I understand correctly, that would have made the PCE joint effort starting point somewhere in SW South Dakota (Wall? Rapid City?), then skirting the Black Hills to the north (I doubt they would have followed through on a Deadwood routing through the Black Hills), following roughly the later course of U.S. Highway 14 through Gillette WY (and there's your PRB coal connection), then parallel to CB&Q to Billings, then northwest to the Musselshell valley where it would take on the course of the PCE route eventually chosen.

Rockefeller seems like a pretty smart guy (smarter than JJ) to have envisioned the better consolidation of Midwestern traffic onto one transcon. It's too bad they didn't take his advice, or we'd still be seeing Orange (and green?) through the Idaho Panhandle.

[Murphy Siding]

Dave: I believe the Milwaukee ended at Chamberlain, on the Missouri River at the time-big river/no bridge. Evarts was a place a few miles south of what became Mobridge, where the Milwaukee had the same situation-big river/no bridge. At the time, I think CNW went all the way up to Belle Fourche, S.D., maybe all the way to the bentonite mine at Colony, Wyoming. It's doubtfull that the PCE would have taken off from western S.D., skirted the Black Hills and headed west to Gillette Wyoming. The countryside from the S.D. / WY state line is rugged, big,rolling hills. It would difficult to build a line there now. 100 years ago, it would have been darn near impossible. I-90, west of Sundance, WY has hills so steep as to be difficult for cars and trucks to climb! A railroad there then, or now would be unlikely.

[bobwilcox]

The C&NW had thought about building west from Lander, WY to hook up somewhere with the SP. When the Big Four sold the SP to Harriman that idea would no longer fly becuase it was presumed Harriman was not interested in shorthauling the UP.

[nanaimo73]

Back on page 1 arbfbe mentioned the Tongue River Railroad. It appears to me this project is dead. Here is some reading for anyone interested.
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/2003/August/Day-22/i21550.htm

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Dave: I believe the Milwaukee ended at Chamberlain, on the Missouri River at the time-big river/no bridge. Evarts was a place a few miles south of what became Mobridge, where the Milwaukee had the same situation-big river/no bridge. At the time, I think CNW went all the way up to Belle Fourche, S.D., maybe all the way to the bentonite mine at Colony, Wyoming. It's doubtfull that the PCE would have taken off from western S.D., skirted the Black Hills and headed west to Gillette Wyoming. The countryside from the S.D. / WY state line is rugged, big,rolling hills. It would difficult to build a line there now. 100 years ago, it would have been darn near impossible. I-90, west of Sundance, WY has hills so steep as to be difficult for cars and trucks to climb! A railroad there then, or now would be unlikely.

According to my atlas, the Belle Fourche river and the original CNW line paralleled each other heading northwest to Colony, wherein the CNW ended and the Belle Fourche turns to the southwest into the PRB within 20 miles of Gillette. The ex -CB&Q (BNSF) line runs west/northwest through Moorcroft on to Gillette. Moorcroft is on the Belle Fourche. So it should have been relatively easy to run a rail line from just north of the Black Hills into the PRB near Gillette by simply following the Belle Fourche river. Then it could have easily paralleled the CB&Q on into the Billings MT area.

If the CNW line to Colony existed at the time of the Milwaukee PCE startup, and if Rockefeller had somehow managed to make the PCE a joint effort between Milwaukee and CNW, logic says they would have started the joint PCE from whichever railroad had the farthest westward extension already.

I do wonder whether such a line would have headed west/southwest into northern Wyoming, or whether it would have headed northwest into Montana and Miles City. The original alignment of U.S. Highway 212 at one time headed north/northwest into MIles City rather than it's current alignment heading due west to the Crow Reservation. I know that sometimes highway planners from the early 1900's used old railroad surveys (if not actually parallel to railroads) to plot the alignment of the original U.S. Highway system, and I wonder if the highway 212 planners had used a survey of a CNW line to Miles City as their basis for the original 212 alignment.

[Murphy Siding]

Dave: You're correct on the geography, but you'd have to see how hilly yhe area is to understand. That might be part of the reason that CNW ended at Colony?

[Anonymous]

Is the Belle Fourche southwest of Colony inaccessable to a water level grade? Is it in a steep twisting canyon, or something like that which would make it extremely difficult to build a rail line using early 1900's construction methods?

[Murphy Siding]

I'll do some research on that. Also,consider that DM&E now has the line into Colony. I've never seen anything to suggest that DM&E thought it was an easy way into the PRB

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

I'll do some research on that. Also,consider that DM&E now has the line into Colony. I've never seen anything to suggest that DM&E thought it was an easy way into the PRB

Actually, I spoke with a guy named Anderson from DM&E a while back in an inquiry as to why DM&E chose to approach the PRB from the south (via a longer line in terms of all new construction) rather than approaching from the Colony area. He stated that indeed DM&E did analyze both routes, but decided on the southern route due to its proximity to higher quality PRB coal. A more northerly entrance (in addition to eventually tapping down into the southern PRB fields) would have also opened up the northern Wyoming and Montana PRB fields for easier development, but the coal there is of lower quality and has a higher sodium content. Since the southern PRB is their goal, the southern line is the most direct.

However, don't count out more RR construction into Montana's PRB just yet, as coal demand is exceeding expectations, and if national energy policy maintains it's preference for coal over the long run, even the Montana fields will have enough national value to justify such infrastructure expenditures.

So even though DM&E did seriously consider a Belle Fourche (I assume a northern DM&E route would have followed the Belle Fourche), that doesn't answer the question of whether CNW or a joint CNW/CM&StP line west of the South Dakota - Wyoming border would have gone that way or headed northwest toward Miles City.

[MichaelSol]

Interestingly, in 1977 or so, the largest single investor in the Milwaukee Road since William Rockefeller, Odyssey Partners, purchased its stake based upon the perception of its senior partner, former Oppenheimer Funds Partner Leon Levy, that coal was going to be the significant commodity of the future, given the oil shock, the direction of oil prices, and the abundance of coal in the United States.

Levy was the kind of guy that could follow up on his research by calling up somebody like James Schlesinger, then Secretary of the Department of Energy. Schlesinger agreed with Levy that coal was in for a significant upsurge in development and use, and more importantly, that this held tremendous significance for America's then-moribund freight rail industry.

Levy inquired further, and found that from the perspective of the Department of Energy, one of the railroads that would benefit most, because of its strategic location atop and near several major coal fields in the Central and Western United States was ... the Milwaukee Road.

Levy flew to Chicago and met with Company accountants and basically, "looked things over." He saw a railroad with a big future as a going concern, that it could sell its enormous real estate assets and internally finance rebuilding and renovation of the system.

Oddyssey Partners then acquired nearly half of the outstanding shares of CMC, the holding company of the Milwaukee Road.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[nanaimo73]

Michael,
The CMSP&P embargoed their line west of Miles City on February 29, 1980 and pulled back on March 15th. In mid-March the ICC rejected the Milwaukee II reorganization plan which included the mainline from Ortonville to Miles City and branches to New England, North Dakota and Sisseton, South Dakota. The Milwaukee Road filed to abandon their track west of Ortonville during the middle of 1981 after they were unable to get federal funds to fix the line (page 13, 8-81 Trains). During November of 1981 officials from the Grand Trunk Corporation toured the system. The Ortonville to Terry line was sold to South Dakota in early 1982 for $37,700,000. On May 24th, 1982 the Milwaukee Road announced a letter of intent with GTC to transfer its stock ownership for $250,000,000 of assumed debt. This would lead me to believe the GTC could have had the line to Miles City but did not want it. Would you agree ?

[MichaelSol]

Preserving the Miles City Gateway never made any sense. I remain convinced that it was more a matter of breaking down the political opposition. South Dakota wouldn't holler and scream if they thought MILW was going to preserve service through the state, so during the Lines West abandonment proceedings, the opposition was reduced to as few states as possible by offering that MILW "intended" to preserve service east of Miles City.

Insofar as traffic, with the shutdown of Lines West, MILW lost 9-11 MGT of high revenue freight over that line, reducing it to about 2.5 MGT of mostly coal and wheat actually generated on-line at Miles City and points east. Yet, they knew very well that in order to continue hauling the coal, they would have to invest heavily in new ballast, ties, and welded rail; those coal unit trains were tearing that jointed track apart.

Rebuilding was justified if the track was carrying 12-14 MGT of high revenue as it was before, but not at less than 3 MGT.

I doubt that the Ortonville/Miles City line was ever seriously considered as a viable line after the 1980 Lines West shutdown. I can't imagine that GTW had any reason to see it differently.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Is the Belle Fourche southwest of Colony inaccessable to a water level grade? Is it in a steep twisting canyon, or something like that which would make it extremely difficult to build a rail line using early 1900's construction methods?

I checked this out-to see if my memory was still working. (It is![:)]). From Colony, the Belle Fourche River goes (or comes from, actually) somewhat southwest toward Morecroft,WYO. This goes through a very rugged area of the northern Black Hills. The river, in a lot of places is at the bottom of rocky canyons. The canyons are filled side to side with river, or depending on rainfall that year, river and silt. Many places are as squirrely as a pigtail. So, in general, I'd have to say no, on routing the PCE down to the PRB. Had the Milwaukee started the PCE at Colony, I think they would have headed due west/northwest, hitting the mountains at about the same place. That they decided to start at what is now Mobridge,S.D., leads me to believe that this was thought to be a better route. It's also on about the same latitude as Minneapolis. The Rapid City line would have put them further south.

[nanaimo73]

The C&NW was pushing west through Wyoming at the time to link up with the Central Pacific and had reached the eastern approaches to South Pass at Lander in 1906.
The line from Belle Fourche to Colony was not built until 1948.
There was a railroad called the Wyoming and Missouri River RR with ran from Belle Fourche 20 miles west to Aladdin, Wyoming from 1898 until 1927.
I believe the CMSP&P wanted to go through Butte using the Montrana Railroad (Lombard-Harlowton-Lewiston) and going through Rapid City would have been out of the way.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

The C&NW was pushing west through Wyoming at the time to link up with the Central Pacific and had reached the eastern approaches to South Pass at Lander in 1906.
The line from Belle Fourche to Colony was not built until 1948.
There was a railroad called the Wyoming and Missouri River RR with ran from Belle Fourche 20 miles west to Aladdin, Wyoming from 1898 until 1927.
I believe the CMSP&P wanted to go through Butte using the Montrana Railroad (Lombard-Harlowton-Lewiston) and going through Rapid City would have been out of the way.

[:I] Imagine the surprise, in 1948 when bentonite is discovered in Wyoming! Right there by the main line too![;)]

[bobwilcox]

The bentonite mines were not on the Northwestern. The stuff was trucked to Belle Fouche and loaded into rail cars at that location.

[Anonymous]

Murphy and nanaimo - If I have this straight, it is both your opinions that if the PCE had been a joint project of CNW and CM&StP, the line still would have started at Mobridge rather than somewhere in SW SD? If so, in your opinion(s) how would the CNW have connected to the Mobridge route?

[nanaimo73]

I would guess the C&NW would have been granted trackage rights from Minneapolis and joint ownership would have started at Aberdeen, where the C&NW had a line up from Huron ( I don't know if it was there in 1905).
Would Michael know ?

Bentonite area
http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?t=2&s=14&x=177&y=1552&z=13&w
Terminal
http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=1&S=12&Z=13&X=708&Y=6210&W
The bend in the river
http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=1&S=14&Z=13&X=172&Y=1554&W
Thing
http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=1&S=12&Z=13&X=653&Y=6171&W

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

The bentonite mines were not on the Northwestern. The stuff was trucked to Belle Fouche and loaded into rail cars at that location.

I'd have to disagree with you. As of two years ago, the lines still go all the way to Colony for bentonite. Look on terraserver. The topo map shows the lines as CNW. The Milwaukee, at one time trucked bentonite to Rapid City to load on rails-at Murphy Siding![:D]

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

I would guess the C&NW would have been granted trackage rights from Minneapolis and joint ownership would have started at Aberdeen, where the C&NW had a line up from Huron ( I don't know if it was there in 1905).
Would Michael know ?

Bentonite area
http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?t=2&s=14&x=177&y=1552&z=13&w
Terminal
http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=1&S=12&Z=13&X=708&Y=6210&W
The bend in the river
http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=1&S=14&Z=13&X=172&Y=1554&W
Thing
http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=1&S=12&Z=13&X=653&Y=6171&W

nanaimo73 has that right.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

I would guess the C&NW would have been granted trackage rights from Minneapolis and joint ownership would have started at Aberdeen, where the C&NW had a line up from Huron ( I don't know if it was there in 1905).
Would Michael know ?

Bentonite area
http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?t=2&s=14&x=177&y=1552&z=13&w
Terminal
http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=1&S=12&Z=13&X=708&Y=6210&W
The bend in the river
http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=1&S=14&Z=13&X=172&Y=1554&W
Thing
http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=1&S=12&Z=13&X=653&Y=6171&W

nanaimo73 has that right.

Thanks, guys. I have also wondered whether it was deemed necessary to utilize the Twin Cities as part of the PCE, or if the planners ever considered bypassing the Twin Cities, instead shooting straight WNW out of Chicago or Milwaukee? If the latter, then the lines through the southern tier of South Dakota would have been favorably located for being part of a PCE.

[Murphy Siding]

I would think that the time of the PCE planning, Minneapolis was allready an important rail center for the Milwaukee Road. Only logical to include it in the grand scheme.

[arbfbe]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mark_W._Hemphill

QUOTE: Originally posted by arbfbe

Certainly the coal deposits are larger than just the Powder River Basin fields and indeed continue on north into Canada. Some of those areas straddling the MILW mainline could have been developed with the MILW becoming a major hauler to the upper midwest. Montana early on passed a coal severance tax to cushion itself against the boom and bust cycle of meneral production as well as to insure abandoned mines would be reclaimed when the wealth had been removed. The hard rock mining industry has left a long history of just walking away from toxic mine and mill sites leaving the state with tens of millions of dollars in work to do to make these sites safe again. Wyoming has not elected to impose this tax and their coal is more competitive in energy markets than Montana coal. This could have been a problem with coal along the MILW tracks.

Al: It would be interesting to see just how much this burdens the Montana PRB coal vs. Wyoming PRB coal on a delivered BTU basis.

The best comparison at the moment is between the mines at Colstrip, MT and Kuehn, MT. The Colstrip mines were once owned by Montana Power and had to pay the into the Coal Severance Trust Fund. The mine at Kuehn is owned by the Crow Tribe and had to pay into the Coal Severance Trust Fund until they won their case in the courts exempting them from the state tax. The mine at Kuehn which was barely competitive with Colstrip when both were getting hooked suddenly become very popular with the consumers when they could sell their product without adding the tax. There is no place on either line to meet trains except at the mines. On the Kuehn line there is usually an empty train waiting at the balloon track switch for the load to finish and get ready to depart. That allows about 3 loaded trains per day and it has been that way since the mine became tax exempt.

The coal severance tax is probably a good thing for the state but it does kink the competitiveness curve with the Crow Nation and the state of Wyoming.

[nanaimo73]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
I have also wondered whether it was deemed necessary to utilize the Twin Cities as part of the PCE, or if the planners ever considered bypassing the Twin Cities, instead shooting straight WNW out of Chicago or Milwaukee? If the latter, then the lines through the southern tier of South Dakota would have been favorably located for being part of a PCE.

Once the CMSP&P decided to head to Puget Sound, I am sure they wanted as much on line business as they could get. Passengers as well as freight.
They had a mainline in place from Chicago through Milwaukee to Minneapolis taking them to Cedar at mile 423 which did not need upgrading. From Cedar the line continued to Evarts at mile 802 which would need upgrading but was in place. They managed to grab the Montana Central from J.J.Hill which took them from Harlowton (mile 1335) to Lombard (mile 1430).

This site has a lot of interesting maps from the 1800's http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/gmdhtml/rrhtml/rrhome.html

[arbfbe]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

Originally posted by futuremodal
. They managed to grab the Montana Central from J.J.Hill which took them from Harlowton (mile 1335) to Lombard (mile 1430).

This site has a lot of interesting maps from the 1800's http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/gmdhtml/rrhtml/rrhome.html

OOPS, but no. The Montana Central ran from Pacific Jct just west of Havre to Great Falls, Helena, Boulder and Butte in Montana. Jim Hill kept control of that line and the GN operated it until after the BN merger. What the MILW did get control of was the Montana Railroad which ran from Lewistown to Harlotown to Lombard. and a connection with the NP. The CM&PS abandoned most of the line through 16 mile canyon and rebuilt at a higher level.

• Reply