Milwaukee Road Pacific Coast Extension - it seems to have sucked

[Deggesty]

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

[VerMontanan]

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

[VerMontanan]

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.

[charlie hebdo]

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. 

[Fred M Cain]

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

[BaltACD]

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?

[Fred M Cain]

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

[Overmod]

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.

[Fred M Cain]

charlie hebdo

 

 

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

 

 

Oooops!  Sorry about that Charlie !

 

FMC

[charlie hebdo]

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. 

[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.

[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

[Overmod]

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?

[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 (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

[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? 

[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

[BaltACD]

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

[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

[VerMontanan]

CMStPnP

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. 

 

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:

 

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

 

 

 

[CMStPnP]

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.

[RME]

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 ...

[RME]

ATSFGuy

Outside of the PCE, where did the MilW excel? Did they have any good routes?

I know you love things like the Super Chief, but does the word "Hiawatha" ring any bells?

(And yes, there were some decidedly bad portions of the route.  For fun, tell me how at how many miles from the Chicago terminal did the speed of an eastbound F7 Hudson drop below 100mph...)

[samfp1943]

jeffhergert

http://milwaukeeroadarchives.com/EconomicStudies/WesternExtensionKellowStudy1978.pdf

 

 

Thanks, Jeff for posting that report(s).  

    It certainly lends credence to the OP's titling of this Thread:" RE: Milwaukee Road Pacific Coast Extension - it seems to have sucked."

 "Sucked" seems to have be a remark for the Annals of Understatement, concerning the Pacific Coast Extebsion. The Milwaukee Road was undoubtedly, late to the party in the Pacific Northwest:  seems that the construction into that region could be laid to an 'ego trip' by an individual(?)

as a pure ego trip.

"...The “Pacific Extension” of the Milwaukee Road was financed by Rockefeller money. 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. The Milwaukee Road was the third railroad connecting the Midwest with the Northwest, following the Northern Pacific (completed in 1884, going over Stampede Pass to Tacoma) and the Great Northern (completed in 1893, going over Stevens Pass into Seattle). Union Pacific completed its Oregon Short Line from its main line in Wyoming, through Idaho to Portland in 1884, with a route connecting to Seattle.

In 1901, a survey estimated the Milwaukee Road’s Pacific Extension would cost $45 million, later increased to $60 million. The route was expensive because of high right-of-way and construction costs. Unlike the Union Pacific and Northern Pacific, the Milwaukee Road was not given government land grants or other subsidies, and had to purchase land from private landowners, and take over small, new, or floundering railroads across the region. The 2,300 mile route was 18 miles shorter than its competitors, but it bypassed major population centers, passed through areas with limited local traffic potential, its tracks paralleled the Northern Pacific tracks, and went through some of the nations’ most varied and difficult topography. It crossed five mountain ranges: the Belts, Rockies, Bitterroots, Saddles, and Cascades, which required major civil engineering works and the use of additional locomotive power..."

Quote from website @ http://mtsgreenway.org/blog/legacy-of-the-milwaukee-road-railway

There is that link to the Dynasties of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

jeffhergert

http://milwaukeeroadarchives.com/EconomicStudies/WesternExtensionKellowStudy1978.pdf

  Must have been a heckuva horizontal fault motion (slip joint) and earthquake to result in the configuration of the railroad as depicted in the Exhibit I map on the 4th page . . .

Thanks for sharing, Jeff.  A quick perusal found the methodology and description to be interesting.   

- Paul North. 

[OWTX]

ATSFGuy

Outside of the PCE, where did the MilW excel?

Did they have any good routes?

 

They excelled at branding, which explains a lot of the love....

I'm not sure any of the bits left would cost out vs. the alternatives in a mega-merger roundup. Maybe Chicago - Twin Cities?

[jeffhergert]

http://milwaukeeroadarchives.com/EconomicStudies/WesternExtensionKellowStudy1978.pdf

 

[ATSFGuy]

Outside of the PCE, where did the MilW excel?

Did they have any good routes?

I still find it amusing this railroad built all the way from Chicago to the Pacific Coast and had track in South Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Indiana just for kicks.

WOW! 645 miles of thrack from Chicago to Seattle!!!  Amazing isn't it?

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

After having read the link provided by the OP, I came to the conclusion that the Pacific Coast Extension was late to the party and consequently missed the best routes.  It also seemed to be pretty much a shoestring operation after it was built.  In retrospect, it's not surprising that the trustee abandoned the line when he did.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

The MILW in the Idaho/ Bitterroot Mountains area has a 'supporting role' in the 2009 book "The Big Burn" by Timothy Egan, about a monstrous forest fire in August 1910 - largest in US history, 3 million acres burned, 85 people killed:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/timothy-egan-on-the-big-burn-141529464/

His description of the railroads is a little too simplistic, populist, and muck-raking for me.  However, in about a page he summarizes the faults of the MILW construction in that area, mainly the costs that greatly exceeded expectations.  The copy I had went back to the library about 2 weeks ago, so I can't provide any more info than that.

- Paul North.     

[CMStPnP]

It took the Milwaukee two attempts and line changes to get it's mainline West of Milwaukee on the current alignment.

1. Milwaukee to Mississippi (Prarie Du Chien) via Brookfield, WI then onto Iowa via pontoon bridge (downgraded to branch line).....mostly operated by W&S today.

2. Milwaukee to Portage via Horicon (some operated by W&S today).

3. Milwaukee to Portage via Columbus (final mainline).    Merger with the Milwaukee and LaCrosse RR..............operated by CP today.