Trains.com

Milwaukee Road Pacific Coast Extension - it seems to have sucked

15934 views
79 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
RME
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • 2,073 posts
Posted by RME on Wednesday, February 8, 2017 5:09 AM

samfp1943
seems that the construction into that region could be laid to an 'ego trip' by an individual ... "In 1900, William Rockefeller, brother of John D. Rockefeller, obtained control of the Anaconda Copper Company, with its copper mine and smelter near Butte, Montana. Rockefeller wanted to build a third railroad from the Midwest to Puget Sound to gain access to the growing Asia trade and to the riches in between."

Well, there was that letter from James J. Hill in 1898 saying ""If our plan works out as well as it promises and electric locomotives can be used on railways, it will give an enormous impetus to the use of copper for transmission."  And there was the original design of catenary with the double trolley on alternating hangars to 'reduce sparking under heavy load and at high speed' ... and perhaps not coincidentally increase the amount of copper to be used in the overhead system, a detail of interest considering how pole lines and similar "economies" were used elsewhere to keep costs down.

Leads one to speculate on exactly why the electrification debt was never cancelled in bankruptcy.  And who benefited from the action.  I guess, reading between the lines, there were more lucrative markets for all that copper by the time any 'filling in' the intermediate gap in electrification was seriously under discussion ...

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Wednesday, February 8, 2017 9:48 AM

ATSFGuy
Outside of the PCE, where did the MilW excel?

Milwaukee was really good with Public Relations and Marketing.   Their Marketing department was hands down better than C&NW or Soo Line.     Yes they should have abandoned a lot of those branchlines sooner.     W&S has a lot of former Milwaukee employees and they seemed to have picked up or learned the Milwaukee's marketing ability to bring in new business.

Milwaukee Road had a monopoly almost on Milwaukee traffic.   Prior to deindustrialization of the Midwest they had pretty massive rail business in Milwaukee.    A lot of it was loose car clients though vs mass use.

Chicago-Kansas City.

Chicago - Twin Cities

Chicago - SW Indiana

Twin Cities to Iowa River Line.

And some of the longer branches brought in good business and still do today.

One of the Milwaukee's big marketing failures was not persuing the UP harder for the frieght business from Omaha to Chicago.    Had it landed that instead of C&NW, I think it would have survived it's last bankruptcy as a smaller system and UP would have a much better route Chicago to Twin Cities than the crappy ex-C&NW that it runs now.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: NotIn, TX
  • 617 posts
Posted by VerMontanan on Friday, February 10, 2017 5:06 PM

CMStPnP
ATSFGuy
Outside of the PCE, where did the MilW excel?

Milwaukee Road had a monopoly almost on Milwaukee traffic.   Prior to deindustrialization of the Midwest they had pretty massive rail business in Milwaukee.    A lot of it was loose car clients though vs mass use.

Chicago-Kansas City.

Chicago - Twin Cities

Chicago - SW Indiana

Twin Cities to Iowa River Line.

And some of the longer branches brought in good business and still do today.

One of the Milwaukee's big marketing failures was not persuing the UP harder for the frieght business from Omaha to Chicago.    Had it landed that instead of C&NW, I think it would have survived it's last bankruptcy as a smaller system and UP would have a much better route Chicago to Twin Cities than the crappy ex-C&NW that it runs now. 

 

The UP freight business, at least the majority of it, was never going to/from the Milwaukee Road at Council Bluffs.  The Milwaukee just couldn’t see it.  I think that Milwaukee management had delusions of adequacy with regard to their routes, and the Chicago-Omaha one was no exception.  Compared to the C&NW route, it had little online business (no wonder when the track deteriorated, they were able to give up from Green Island to Tama in favor of trackage rights on C&NW at Clinton starting in December of 1977), but the biggest reason the C&NW would always be the preferred route was its greater capacity.  The C&NW was double track all way across Iowa (until a section was single-tracked west of Denison), whereas the Milwaukee had to scramble and invest millions to install CTC on their line across Iowa when they started foolishly running the Cities streamliners.  But the main thing that the C&NW route had going for it was its alternate route between Missouri Valley, IA and Fremont, NE, which allowed run through C&NW-UP trains to completely avoid the Omaha-Council Bluffs terminal.  The Milwaukee-UP interchange would always have to be in Council Bluffs.  Today, UP largely runs a directional railroad between Missouri Valley and Fremont, with eastbounds running via Omaha, and westbounds via Blair, fluidity only possible with the ex-C&NW route.
 
As for the other routes indicated by “CMStPnP”, probably the only one I would agree where the Milwaukee had the superior route (or even a good route) was Chicago to the Twin Cities. Though entering Chicago from the North it’s not in a best position to interchange with many other railroads (that’s why CN grabbed the EJ&E), it’s hard to ignore that Milwaukee, a major city, is along the route, as well as directly serving La Crosse and Winona.  It is indeed curious that a major city like Milwaukee was served basically only by two major railroads (MILW and C&NW, if you don’t count a near-miss by the Soo Line and C&O, GTW, and PRR via Lake Michigan car ferries)!
 
The Milwaukee’s Chicago-Kansas City route is hardly the premier route, vastly inferior to BNSF’s two routes and to the ex-C&NW/ex-CRI&P Union Pacific route via Nevada, IA.  It is better than the CGW’s route, and maybe on par with the ex-GM&O.  But overall, nothing special.  It has a surprising amount of CTC though not enough long sidings and online traffic.  It gained some of Rock Island’s traffic in Davenport and in Muscatine when the Rock went under in 1980. In fact, it began using the Rock Island track all the way between Davenport and Washington, abandoning its route.  Its main Achilles’ heel is a nasty eastward 1.6 percent grade climbing away from the Des Moines River in Ottumwa.
 
The “Twin Cities to Iowa River Line” is probably the one from River Jct. (La Crescent) to the Quad Cities.  It’s a direct route, but being dark territory and with only one siding between River Jct. and Marquette (about 60 miles) it’s not a high-capacity route compared to BNSF on the other side of the river with CTC all the way and lots of two main tracks.
 
“Chicago to Southwest Indiana” is a curious choice to even mention.  Clearly, C&EI had the best route here.  The Milwaukee got access to Louisville, KY in 1973 as a condition of the L&N’s acquisition of the Monon (Milwaukee got trackage rights on the ex-Monon from Bedford to Louisville.)  The route was a branch to nowhere for most of its existence (serving the coal producing area south of Terre Haute).  The Southern Railway wanted to operate a run through freight on the Milwaukee from Louisville to Chicago to counter its rival L&N, but the Milwaukee was in such sad shape it couldn’t promise anything close to realistic schedule.  Most of the line from the Chicago area to Terre Haute was abandoned or shortlined in 1979 when Milwaukee trains began using Conrail trackage rights, akin to running on the C&NW across Eastern Iowa.
 
Most of the Milwaukee’s branch lines didn’t even stand the test of time.  Exceptions are the Wisconsin River Valley line to Wausau (now run by CN based out of Stevens Point), and the line across Northern Iowa.  But probably the one place where the Milwaukee did have the superlative routes was in South Dakota.  Former Milwaukee lines in South Dakota are dominant (now operated by BNSF), even though the remnant of its transcontinental route in South Dakota is not part of BNSF’s “Northern Transcontinental.”  Interestingly (or not) however, had the Milwaukee not been so financially strapped in the early 1980s and seeking to abandon all (remaining) trackage in the state, perhaps ex-GN and ex-C&NW routes would have become more important than they did or are.  After all, Burlington Northern had little incentive to keep or upgrade its route to Aberdeen or between Watertown and Sioux Falls and Yankton when it began operating ex-Milwaukee routes on behalf of the state in the same area.  In other words, had the Milwaukee not been so weak initially, perhaps BN routes could have captured the traffic (and hosted more of the burgeoning shuttle grain train facilities) had BNSF not already have been operating the nearby Milwaukee lines. 
 
For those interested, the situation in South Dakota (and all states across the Northern Tier) is explained on page 14 of this document at:
 
 

 

 

Mark Meyer

  • Member since
    July 2014
  • 565 posts
Posted by Fred M Cain on Thursday, June 13, 2019 6:15 AM

QUESTION:


Does anybody have or know the running time of the Olympian Hiawatha from Seattle to Spokane vs. the Northern Pacific's fastest train between the same two end point via Stampede Pass?

Regards,

Fred M. Cain

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Thursday, June 13, 2019 6:58 AM

Fred M Cain
QUESTION:


Does anybody have or know the running time of the Olympian Hiawatha from Seattle to Spokane vs. the Northern Pacific's fastest train between the same two end point via Stampede Pass?

Regards,

Fred M. Cain

From 'Streamliner Memories' and Amtraks current timetable

Olympian Hiawatha (1956) - 7'30 EB  8'25 WB

North Coast Limited (1959) -   9'08 EB  9'03 WB

Empire Builder (1956)  - 7'15 EB  7'55 WB

 

Amtrak (today)  - 8'00 EB   8'10 WB

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    July 2014
  • 565 posts
Posted by Fred M Cain on Thursday, June 13, 2019 7:24 AM

BaltACD

From 'Streamliner Memories' and Amtraks current timetable

Olympian Hiawatha (1956) - 7'30 EB  8'25 WB

 

Huh.  Interesting.  I wonder why the westbound Hiawatha took nearly an hour longer to make the run than the eastbound?

Regards,

Fred M. Cain

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Thursday, June 13, 2019 7:34 AM

Fred M Cain

 

 
BaltACD

From 'Streamliner Memories' and Amtraks current timetable

Olympian Hiawatha (1956) - 7'30 EB  8'25 WB

 

 

 

Huh.  Interesting.  I wonder why the westbound Hiawatha took nearly an hour longer to make the run than the eastbound?

Regards,

Fred M. Cain

 

Perhaps the ruling grades? 

  • Member since
    July 2014
  • 565 posts
Posted by Fred M Cain on Thursday, June 13, 2019 7:46 AM

Well, I wondered about the ruling grades, too.  I read somewhere years ago that the grade on one side of the Saddle Mountains was much steeper than on the other side (can't remember which now) but I'm not sure that would slow a passenger train down that much.  Surely it would a freight train but a passenger train?

 

Maybe they'd have to go slower downgrade for safety purposes?

Regards,

Fred M. Cain

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, June 13, 2019 7:49 AM

charlie hebdo
Fred M Cain

I wonder why the westbound Hiawatha took nearly an hour longer to make the run than the eastbound?

Perhaps the ruling grades?


Could this be an artifact of a time-zone change?

  • Member since
    July 2014
  • 565 posts
Posted by Fred M Cain on Thursday, June 13, 2019 8:15 AM

Charlie,

 

I thought about the time zones to but I don't think so.  Maps clearly indicate that the entire state of Washington (and part of Idaho) all lie within the Pacific time zone.

FMC

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 2,593 posts
Posted by PNWRMNM on Thursday, June 13, 2019 8:28 AM

The most likely reason is schedule padding westward to ncrease probablility of on time arrival at Seattle. There is no time zone change across Washington.

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Thursday, June 13, 2019 8:31 AM

Fred M Cain

Charlie,

 

I thought about the time zones to but I don't think so.  Maps clearly indicate that the entire state of Washington (and part of Idaho) all lie within the Pacific time zone.

FMC

 

I did not hypothesize time zones as being a reason.  That was Overmod. 

  • Member since
    July 2014
  • 565 posts
Posted by Fred M Cain on Thursday, June 13, 2019 8:38 AM

charlie hebdo

 

 
I did not hypothesize time zones as being a reason.  That was Overmod. 
 

 

Oooops!  Sorry about that Charlie !

 

FMC

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, June 13, 2019 8:46 AM

Fred M Cain
Charlie, I thought about the time zones to but I don't think so. Maps clearly indicate that the entire state of Washington (and part of Idaho) all lie within the Pacific time zone.

That's not him; that was me.

  • Member since
    July 2014
  • 565 posts
Posted by Fred M Cain on Thursday, June 13, 2019 9:19 AM

PNWRMNM

The most likely reason is schedule padding westward to ncrease probablility of on time arrival at Seattle. There is no time zone change across Washington.

 

This is, in my own personal, honest and humble opinion the most likely explanation.  Amtrak still does this today on some of their long-distance trains.

 

Regards,

Fred M. Cain

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Thursday, June 13, 2019 10:43 AM

charlie hebdo
 
Fred M Cain 
BaltACD

From 'Streamliner Memories' and Amtraks current timetable

Olympian Hiawatha (1956) - 7'30 EB  8'25 WB 

Huh.  Interesting.  I wonder why the westbound Hiawatha took nearly an hour longer to make the run than the eastbound?

Regards,

Fred M. Cain

Perhaps the ruling grades? 

Schedule padding for OT arrivals?

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    July 2014
  • 565 posts
Posted by Fred M Cain on Thursday, June 13, 2019 11:25 AM

BaltACD

Schedule padding for OT arrivals?

Yes, I think so.  I saw where today Amtrak train #4 the eastbound Southwest Chief is allowed 35 minutes from LA to Fullerton.  But westbound #3 is allowed nearly two hours (1 hr, 54').

So, it would be interesting to know what the running times were for the Olympian Hiawatha EB vs WB from Seattle to the first stop on the line to the east.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Thursday, June 13, 2019 11:44 AM

BALTACD posted: 

Olympian Hiawatha (1956) - 7'30 EB  8'25 WB

North Coast Limited (1959) -   9'08 EB  9'03 WB

Empire Builder (1956)  - 7'15 EB  7'55 WB

Amtrak (today)  - 8'00 EB   8'10 WB

 

not so sure it was padding, especially back then. 

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: NotIn, TX
  • 617 posts
Posted by VerMontanan on Thursday, June 13, 2019 2:09 PM

Fred M Cain

So, it would be interesting to know what the running times were for the Olympian Hiawatha EB vs WB from Seattle to the first stop on the line to the east.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain 

From the May 1961 Official Guide (the month the Olympian Hiawatha was discontinued):

Westward train 15 was allowed 49 minutes from departure at Renton to arrival at Seattle (12 miles).  Eastward train 16 was scheduled for 23 minutes Seattle to Renton.

The running times don't tell the whole story.  Sure, NP trains took longer to run from Spokane to Seattle and vice versa compared to GN and MILW passenger trains, which was logical considering their longer route.  But unlike the GN and MILW, the NP trains experienced signficant dwell in Pasco picking up or setting out cars to/from Portland.  GN did this at Spokane, and the MILW trains never had any through cars to Portland and the important connection to/from the SP which was one of things that made MILW passenger service inferior.

While westward trains inbound at Seattle had some padding, the actual necessity of it varied by railroad.  GN and NP turned the equipment off the Empire Builder and North Coast Limited the same day.  This was especially tricky for the North Coast Limited which at times had turn times of 5 hours or less.  When inbound trains were very late GN especially and NP to a great extent had the option of substituting equipment from other trains.  GN's Western Star was a bona fide streamliner as were GN trains to Vancouver, BC; NP had the Mainstreeter and a streamliner connection to the SP at Portland.  In other words, the GN and NP had the ability to mix and match equipment (even among the two railroads on occasion).  The MILW had no such option as other than transcontinental trains, they ran no other local passenger service.  And before 1955, the heavyweight equipment used on the Columbian was hardly substitutable for that used by the Olympian Hiawatha; as a result, the MILW kept a spare set of equipment in Tacoma (where the Olympian Hiawatha actually terminated) overnight instead of risking delay from a late inbound train with no other donor equipment available.

And speaking of Spokane-to-Seattle passenger service, for the first 62 miles out of Spokane, MILW trains used Union Pacific as far as Marengo (and used UP for 23 miles east of Spokane as far as Manito).  MILW maps showed this route via Spokane as an alternate route, but the reality was that west of Spokane it was basically a passenger-only operation (on UP), and after the Olympian Hiawatha went away in 1961, MILW freight access to Spokane was almost exclusively from Plummer, Idaho, relegating Spokane to branch-line status.

Mark Meyer

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: NotIn, TX
  • 617 posts
Posted by VerMontanan on Thursday, June 13, 2019 2:17 PM

Fred M Cain

Well, I wondered about the ruling grades, too.  I read somewhere years ago that the grade on one side of the Saddle Mountains was much steeper than on the other side 

 

 

 

 

From: http://www.gngoat.org/GN-MILW-NP.pdf

West of Harlowton began the many very steep grades on the Milwaukee Road’s Pacific Extension:
  1. The hill at Loweth, 1.4 percent westward; 1 percent eastward
  2. The Continental Divide at Pipestone Pass, 2 percent westward; 1.66 percent eastward.
  3. St. Paul Pass (Bitterroot Mountains), 1.7 percent each way
  4. Boylston (Saddle Mountains), 2.2 percent westward, 1.6 percent eastward.
  5. Snoqualmie Pass (Cascade Mountains), .7 percent westward, 1.74 percent eastward.
All of these grades, except Loweth and westward to Snoqualmie were considered helper grades. 
 
Here is a synopsis of the major grades (greater than 1 percent) on the GN, MILW, and NP west of Havre, Harlowton, and Livingston respectively, as well as GN-NP subsidiary SP&S (blank where not applicable):
 
Westward (grade, in percent);
*-tunnel at/near crest;
Alternate NP routes not on main freight route italicized.
 
GN
MILW
NP
SP&S
Little Belt/Bridger Mountains
 
1.4
1.8*
 
Continental Divide
1.3
2.0*
2.2*
 
Continental Divide-Homestake Pass
 
 
2.2
 
Coriacan Defile-Evaro Hill
 
 
2.2
 
Bitterroot Mountains
 
1.7*
 
 
Saddle Mountains
 
2.2*
 
 
Cascade Mountains
2.2*
.7*
2.2*
<.2
 
Eastward (grade, in percent)
*-tunnel at/near crest;
Alternate NP routes not on main freight route italicized.
 
GN
MILW
NP
SP&S
Little Belt/Bridger Mountains
 
1.0
1.9*
 
Continental Divide
1.8
1.66*
1.4*
 
Continental Divide-Homestake Pass
 
 
2.2
 
Coriacan Defile-Evaro Hill
 
 
2.2
 
Bitterroot Mountains
 
1.7*
 
 
Saddle Mountains
 
1.6*
 
 
Cascade Mountains
2.2*
1.74*
2.2*
<.4

Mark Meyer

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Thursday, June 13, 2019 2:45 PM

Did the WB Olympian Hiawatha head into the station in Seattle or back in?

Johnny

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: NotIn, TX
  • 617 posts
Posted by VerMontanan on Thursday, June 13, 2019 4:49 PM

Deggesty

Did the WB Olympian Hiawatha head into the station in Seattle or back in?

 

 
They headed into Union Station in Seattle, and the locomotives ran around the train.  Between Seattle and Tacoma and vice versa, the trains were towed "backward."

Mark Meyer

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Thursday, June 13, 2019 7:31 PM

Thank you.

Johnny

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Friday, June 14, 2019 3:02 PM

Back in the 1800's early 1900's I think most railroads built new lines to adhere to a schedule and budget to get them in place vs to get them to stand the test of time in every respect of perfection.    Later they would come along and correct curvature and grades as budgets or operations would allow.   

This was also the Milwaukee Roads practice if you noticed the much extolled mainline between Chicago and the Twin Cities was in fact the third attempt to get it right across Wisconsin.   1st was the Milwaukee and Mississippi line between Milwaukee - Waukesha and Prarire Du Chien, 2nd was the Northern Milwaukee Mainline that traversed North Milwaukee before heading West via various small cites all the way to Portage. 3rd finally was the line west of the Town of Brookfield to Portage.    Originally the line to Brookfield then West to Waukesha was only single tracked.     They laid the second line or double track much later between Milwaukee and Brookfield.    Interestingly the Milwaukee Road kept all three lines one current mainline and two former mainlines in tact all the way to the sale to the Soo Line.    WSOR ended up with almost the entire former Milwaukee and Mississippi and operates it today.    I beleve WSOR also has a good chunk of the Northern mainline in operation though it no longer goes to Portage.

Also, should mention that the Milwaukee built some of it's granger railroad system by merging with other railroad lines the railroad did not build it all.   Most especially in Wisconsin.......it's last Twin Cities mainline was the result of a merger between the Milwaukee and LaCrosse Railroad and the former Milwaukee and Mississippui which after a bankruptcy wa renamed the Milwaukee and Prarie Du Chien railway.    Milwaukee filled in the gaps and renamed itself the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul and the Prarie Du Chien line eventually became secondary.    The Prarie Du Chien line did carry substantial traffic back then and was originally built in that direction to support the rapidly expanding Zinc (formerly Lead) Mining industry in SW Wisconsin......the whole point of the Mineral Point, WI branch.   At one point Mineral Point, WI with it's Zinc and Lead Mining and smelters was almost as large as Milwaukee in land area.........it has shrunk substantially since then and today you almost cannot tell it was ever more than a small farming town.   My point here is you have to look at the lines built, acquired and merged in the Midwest in their respective historical context vs todays traffic levels. 

Last but not least, the name of the railroad and it's predominance in Milwaukee was because it was both initially HQ'd,  Financed, and run out of Milwaukee vs Chicago.   It extended to Chicago well after the predecessor to the C&NW did and established a Chicago HQ..........15-20 years after founding.   

  • Member since
    August 2009
  • 322 posts
Posted by BLS53 on Monday, June 17, 2019 1:48 PM

BaltACD

One thing foamers always overlook in their discussions of what railroad did or didn't do is the sheer volume of traffic that is required to make a line profitable and self sustaining.  It is always about the money.  When outgo exceeds income trouble ensues.

 

I think that's true of any hobby that involves the observation of an activity, that's business doesn't involve entertainment or a spectator sport.

  • Member since
    October 2014
  • 1,139 posts
Posted by Gramp on Monday, June 17, 2019 8:36 PM

CMStPnP

Last but not least, the name of the railroad and it's predominance in Milwaukee was because it was both initially HQ'd,  Financed, and run out of Milwaukee vs Chicago.   It extended to Chicago well after the predecessor to the C&NW did and established a Chicago HQ..........15-20 years after founding.   

 

Also, to many people it was known as The St. Paul Road.

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Tuesday, June 18, 2019 6:49 AM

You will see that in any number of small towns in Wisconsin where the street paralleling the tracks is often called St. Paul Avenue (or Street).

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    July 2016
  • 2,631 posts
Posted by Backshop on Tuesday, June 18, 2019 7:09 AM

I know, let's kill a bunch of birds with one stone.  Let's relay the track and run Amtrak and "cruise" trains on it and maybe one freight for the foamers to take pictures of. Then everyone will be happy...(sarcasm).

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Tuesday, June 18, 2019 11:48 AM

samfp1943
In 1901, a survey estimated the Milwaukee Road’s Pacific Extension would cost $45 million, later increased to $60 million.

This was the predominant issue right here as well as lack of traffic by completion in 1909, total PCE cost was above $257 million (that is a LOT of money in 1909).    Now that would not have been so bad had any bankruptcy judge after that allowed the railroad to give the bond holders a major haircut.    However it never happened and that debt kept being rolled over........you could watch it slowly increase over time due to compounding and inability of the Milwaukee to pay it down.    The interest payments on the growing debt was a cause of cash flow issues in successive Milwaukee bankruptcies.    Which led to the final bankruptcy in 1977 and the comments by the Trustee in the 1980s, he refused to give the railroad another chance based on the total bankruptcies through time.    He wanted this to be the last bankruptcy and so he forced the sale option over the railroad reorganization plan.........thats how the Soo got it.   The trustee was trying to balance competition among remaining lines after the Milwaukee was sold.

On the unwillingness to forgive the PCE debt or give the bond holders a haircut.  Sounds unfair now but in the context of the time the Milwaukee Road was involved in via arms length or name association with several stock and bondholder ripoffs.  One of the most notable that you can lookup in Wisconsin was the Milwaukee and LaCrosse fiasco.    The M&L merged into the Milwaukee but not before selling what would quickly become worthless bonds to Wisconsin Farmers and causing mass personal bankruptcies of individuals that invested large chunks of their personal savings in them.    You can read about in old issues of the Milwaukee Journal.    The newspaper and state politicians were heavily critical of M&L and the later Milwaukee Road for no attempts to make good on the worthless bonds.   Not sure if the Judge had access to previous transgressions or if they were in the railroads record but if they were one can understand why they wanted to never let the railroad off the hook for debt incurred given railroad "robber barron" reputations historically..........just my two cents.

In my view though as a business in the railroad industry I would say their management was average to better vs poorly managed at least it was in the Milwaukee area.   Yes I think they made mistakes but they out competed C&NW and Soo Line in Wisconsin hands down.    They were fast to spot a business opportunity and move on it and usually left C&NW choking on their dust.   Soo Line seemed more focused on small to medium sized businesses along it's line or it could be the rural nature of the Soo Line mainline but the Soo had customer sidings it seemed everywhere that would only produce a few cars a week or month.    Milwaukee persued the more heavy duty operations like the Beer Line in Milwaukee (Miller, Pabst and Schlitz were all Milwaukee customers.......yes some shipped C&NW but the Milwaukee was the primary carrier)   

Major Milwaukee firms like JI CASE farm tractors, Allis Chalmers,  AO Smith, P&H, FALK Corp, Red Star Yeast, etc. etc.  were all Milwaukee customers and before the large shift away from industrial you would see large cuts of trains on Milwaukee with auto & truck frames bound for all parts of the country.   Large cuts of Boxcars carrying beer kegs,  Malt, Barley and Grain hoppers, flat cars with the yellow and black P&H grading equipment on it, Red and White CASE tractors, etc, etc.    Even in rural communities like Oconomowoc you could see the marketing at work.   Oconomowoc used to be a fairly major shipper which has faded into light under CP but still enough freight out of Oconomowoc today they merit almost a regular daily stop on the Milwaukee to Watertown patrol job.    Brownberry Ovens (Bakery products) has a spur and I would guess is the major shipper there.

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,901 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Tuesday, June 18, 2019 12:19 PM

VerMontanan

 

The UP freight business, at least the majority of it, was never going to/from the Milwaukee Road at Council Bluffs.  The Milwaukee just couldn’t see it.  I think that Milwaukee management had delusions of adequacy with regard to their routes, and the Chicago-Omaha one was no exception.  Compared to the C&NW route, it had little online business (no wonder when the track deteriorated, they were able to give up from Green Island to Tama in favor of trackage rights on C&NW at Clinton starting in December of 1977), but the biggest reason the C&NW would always be the preferred route was its greater capacity.  The C&NW was double track all way across Iowa (until a section was single-tracked west of Denison), whereas the Milwaukee had to scramble and invest millions to install CTC on their line across Iowa when they started foolishly running the Cities streamliners.  But the main thing that the C&NW route had going for it was its alternate route between Missouri Valley, IA and Fremont, NE, which allowed run through C&NW-UP trains to completely avoid the Omaha-Council Bluffs terminal.  The Milwaukee-UP interchange would always have to be in Council Bluffs.  Today, UP largely runs a directional railroad between Missouri Valley and Fremont, with eastbounds running via Omaha, and westbounds via Blair, fluidity only possible with the ex-C&NW route.
 
 
 
 

 

 
 

The CNW was double track between Missouri Valley, Iowa east after the early 1940s.  Council Bluffs - Mo Valley was pulled up for scrap for the war effort.  In the mid 60s is when the second track between Mo Valley and Denison was pulled out leaving two long sidings.

The Milwaukee had been double tracked for about a 20 year period east of Manila Iowa after the 1912 era rebuilding of the Iowa line.  Starting in the 30s, sections were single tracked because the UP traffic never materialized.  The 1950s modernization was probably the second attempt to get more UP traffic.  

The MILW did have one run through with the UP.  After the last bankruptcy the UP was willing to accept that run through via Kansas City instead of Council Bluffs.  This was one of many reasons leading to the abandonment of the line to Council Bluffs.

Jeff 

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy