Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
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
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 ?
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
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?
Mark Meyer
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?
QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 Was the spur just west of Roundup to Klein a source of steam locomotive coal ?
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.
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.
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.
QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM Bob, Why is that? Mac
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?
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.
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
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.
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
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.