VerMontanan, The real circuity in the Soo/CP/SI/UP route comes after Spokane, wher it takes the trip over the UP via Hinkle/Portland/Seattle.
While I don't think that a BNSF spin-off of the ex-NP east of Billings is imminent, I would not want to guess beyond 5 years out. Are not most of the upgrades they are doing on the route in he Bakken Field? Between oil field production decline curves and pipeline competition, that business could disappear as fast as it started.
I hate these lists disguised as news stories wherever they appear. They are strictly sausage stuffers, and should be regarded as such by readers. I produced my (reluctant) share of them as a newspaperman over 20 years.
TRAINS is so off-base including BN in the blunder category as to be laughable. Yeah, BN was slow in paying off -- as all railroading was 40 years ago -- but how about the result today?
TRAINS should stop trying for chic and pandering to short attention spans and stick with solid journalism.
One wonders what would have taken place in the Powder River coal fields had NP/MILW and GN/CB&Q had been in place. Could either of the two systems (or three, looking at CNW/UP as well) been able to put together the capital to expand the rail system the area? BN was able to justify the investment knowing that they would reap the full benefit (or, at least, that was the theory!).
Fortunately, the Prince and Ripley plans didn't happen either. The author on the SPSF, RI/UP and BN mergers of the time should have better explained the competitive forces at play in each event.
There were plenty of things "not good" about the BN adventure that proper managerial training (top to bottom) might have helped, but that big dumb monolith managed to survive in spite of itself.
There was a lot of imported arrogance in the SPSF follies that left us all in the trenches wondering why our input was never much even entertained. The mess afterwards was a circus with UP, BN, Sam Zell, Blackstone, Kinsey Group and other Wall Street freak shows crawling all over the property.
MidlandMike The UP was roundabout, as was the Soo/CP/SI/UP.
The UP was roundabout, as was the Soo/CP/SI/UP.
Mike,
The actual mileages between St. Paul and Spokane are:
GN, via Willmar, Kindred, Havre: 1446
MILW (via UP trackage rights Manito-Spokane): 1473
Soo/CP/SI/UP via Harvey, Moose Jaw, Dunmore, Yahk, Eastport: 1476
NP, via Helena, St. Regis: 1526.
So, depending on your definition of "Pacific Northwest", NP has the longest route mileage to places like Spokane and Portland, except for the C&NW/UP route. On that route between St. Paul and Portland, GN's shortest route was 1815 miles, Soo/CP/SI/UP 1856 miles, NP via St. Regis (main freight route) 1903 miles but the C&NW/UP via California Jct., IA is 2102 miles, considerably longer than the competition.
Most seem to forget that the NP entered Montana in the Northeast part of the state - Glendive is closer to Saskatchewan than Wyoming - veers 100 miles to the south on its westward trip across Montana and exits Montana in the Northwest corner. Lots of extra miles - many more, in fact than Soo-CP-SI-UP.
I doubt BNSF will "spin off" the line east of Billings anytime soon. It has already added numerous sidings and is installing CTC to increase capacity. I don't think the "end of coal" will occur all that soon.
Mark Meyer
I guess I should have defined the "lane" as Twin Cities-Pacific Northwest. The UP was roundabout, as was the Soo/CP/SI/UP. The only other significant RR in the Minn and ND service area was the Soo. Wash also had the UP. If the ICC had dug their heels in, and did not allow a GN-NP combo, the two strongest (GN and CB&Q) might have left the NP out in the cold. NP's main interest in the MILW would have been for the Twin Cities-Chicago line. Snoqualmie Pass and a few other pieces would have been an added benefit. ICC might have forced the NP divestiture of their CB&Q interest. The SP&S could have continued as a joint line.
Anyway some of the spin-off the NP has already transpired. First, west of Billings with the MRL. As coal traffic continues to erode, I look for BNSF to spin-off the line east of Billings.
While I agree with some of the "Blunders" in the article, the BN merger wasn't one of them. To suggest that the NP and MILW should have merged would even be a bigger blunder, especially considering that the author pegged the construction of the Milwaukee Road's Pacific Extension as Blunder No. 4 (out of the top 13).
One problem with the NP-MILW merger (and subsequent GN-CB&Q merger) is that it suggests the MILW and CB&Q were pretty much equal. Not the case. Most of the Milwaukee's mileage was on the Pacific Extension and its poor branchline network to obscure places like Ontonogan, Michigan, Seymour, Indiana, and Rapid City, SD. The CB&Q had too many branches in Nebraska and Iowa, but its core routes were strong. Compare, if you will, access to Omaha and Kansas City on the CB&Q vs. MILW. No contest.
Then you have that the GN's route structure was far superior to that of the NP, so combining the GN and CB&Q (the strongest railroads) with the NP and the MILW (the weakest of the 4) meant that the NP really got the short end of the stick. As stated earlier, there is no way this would have happened to thwart James J. Hill's vision and the complexity of dealing with that the GN and NP each owned half of the CB&Q and SP&S. The salient point is that as long as the MILW had their Pacific Extension, no one wanted it, being the high-cost route that it was. (NP+MILW west of Terry Montana would pretty much look like the NP + maybe the chunk from Easton, WA to Black River over Snoqualmie Pass, but little other MILW track.)
Midland Mike's speculation "there is no real competition in the lane" is a commonly stated myth. There were other railroads besides the GN and NP in Minnesota, North Dakota and Washington. In Montana, the MILW would provide more competition with the GN (in areas around Great Falls, for example) and NP (around Missoula and Bozeman) than the GN and NP had with each other due to the distance the routes are separated in the state. Due to its inferior profile and branch line network, the MILW couldn't compete with either the GN or NP (more so as we speculate in present day with increasingly heavier trains).
The number 5 blunder is the attempted Southern Pacific-Santa Fe merger. That one qualifies. But BN? Things turned out just the way they should have.
ALL:
The NP and GN wanted to merge about 1920 or so, but would have to divest the CBQ, which was not going to happen.
Anthony Kane was a GN lawyer who was in charge of getting the merger through the courts. It almost happened in 1968, but did not happen. Finally in 1970 the merger took place.
Maybe the GN-CBQ would have been a good idea, but the strong leadership of the prior roads would not have let this happen.
As information, Anthony Kane's son was hired as a section laborer at Northtown and changed crafts to TYE. It was my honor to introduce him to Dave Hanson, Terminal Supt, who interviewed him for yardmaster. He holds the day yardmaster in the Hump Tower to this day.
Ed Burns
I think the article's author was saying the merger should not have happened from a regulatory standpoint. Obviously the NP, GN, and CB&Q were so tied together that they would not have considered a MILW merger on their own. If ICC had not allowed the BN merger, but instead had allowed a GN/CB&Q merger, then NP would have been left out in the cold, and might have needed MILW for a Chicago connection, and gain MILW's share of the PNW business. As it turned out , once MILW retrenched, then BN leased out the heart of the ex-NP to MRL There is no real competetion in the lane.
First I am retired NP-BN-BNSF Clerk from Northtown (Minneapolis) with 38 years of service. I worked in operations, engineering, and material departments and have a good working knowledge of railroading in general.
One item in the September, 2015 "Trains" was the authors opinion that the NP and MILW should have merger and let the GN and CBQ merge on their own.
My opinion is that the NP would not consider the MILW a merger partner for many reasons. The GN and NP each owned 45 or 48 percent of the CBQ. That was their freight and passenger route from the Pacific Northwest into Minneapolis, St. Paul, Sioux City (GN only), and Billings-Laurel. Don't forget that the NP and GN each owned their half of the St. Paul GOB. The GN-NP owned the SPS and the Midland Railway of Manitoba. The CBQ in turn owned the CS, which owned the FWD.
The NP was a very conservative railroad and thought things through before implementing them.
If the NP had merged with the MILW, the ICC would (probably) had them divest themselves of the CBQ. The NP would have received the Terry, Montana to St. Paul line, but would have been burdened with the many MILW branch lines in southern Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin.
Don't forget that the GN and NP wanted to merge about 1920 or so, but they would have had to sell the CBQ, their natural link to Chicago.
I was working at Northtown as of "M" Day and have worked in three of the former GN yards in Minneapolis. I will tell all that the company held pre-merger meetings in the Minneapolis depot so we could meet people and have the consolidated terminnal explained to us.
This is my opinion. I value the opinions of others.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.