Didn’t the ICC require that bridge traffic be split among the grangers between Council Bluffs and Chicago? Propping up the weak carriers at the expense of the strong ones?
Gramp Didn’t the ICC require that bridge traffic be split among the grangers between Council Bluffs and Chicago? Propping up the weak carriers at the expense of the strong ones?
That is one of the few stupid things the ICC did not do. In the regulated era, carriers equalized rates between Omaha/Council Bluffs and Chicago.
Time and service sensative traffic took the fastest routes. Higher cost routes earned a lower contribution margin than did lower cost routes. Customers knew which routes prvided the better service and tended to favor those routes.
Mac
VerMontanan Actually, CPRS has made the Marquette Sub mainline (La Crescent, MN - Sabula, IA) a very busy line these days and has done a ton of work on it to handle the traffic it sees these days. And, as of right now, there are TWO sidings between Marquette and La Crescent - Kains (between Lansing and New Albin) and now Harpers Ferry (10,000 ft) with plans for a third siding at Brownsville, MN. Disagree with you about the MILW's Chicago-Omaha mainline. No, it was not a foolish decision for MILW to accept the "Cities" trains in 1955 but MILW; particularly then-President J. P. Kiley, did not do a good enough job of negotiating. The promise was that MILW would get the lion's share of UP overhead traffic at the Council Bluffs/Omaha gateway and sadly, that never developed. The one thing that MILW DID have going for it, however, was Cedar Rapids and the traffic that came out of there. 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: http://www.gngoat.org/GN-MILW-NP.pdf
Actually, CPRS has made the Marquette Sub mainline (La Crescent, MN - Sabula, IA) a very busy line these days and has done a ton of work on it to handle the traffic it sees these days. And, as of right now, there are TWO sidings between Marquette and La Crescent - Kains (between Lansing and New Albin) and now Harpers Ferry (10,000 ft) with plans for a third siding at Brownsville, MN.
Disagree with you about the MILW's Chicago-Omaha mainline. No, it was not a foolish decision for MILW to accept the "Cities" trains in 1955 but MILW; particularly then-President J. P. Kiley, did not do a good enough job of negotiating. The promise was that MILW would get the lion's share of UP overhead traffic at the Council Bluffs/Omaha gateway and sadly, that never developed. The one thing that MILW DID have going for it, however, was Cedar Rapids and the traffic that came out of there.
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.
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.
Los Angeles Rams Guy
Ha-ha....
I think there is a lot missing from that rail line analysis including the ill fated attempt by Northern Pacific to reach Chicago by leasing the Wisconsin Central.......which if I look at a rail map is a fairly significant ommission rail mileage wise. Wasn't it the Northern Pacific that used it's funds to build the Chicago Passenger Terminal before going bankrupt and relinquishing it's lease on WC?
And who would write this nonsense in a serious business analysis: "The Super Dome was not as successful as the dome cars ecause it lacked forward visibility which is the primary reason people ride dome cars"..........really? Is that from a passenger survey somewhere or is it railfan opinion? What about the tail car?
[quote user="Los Angeles Rams Guy"]
[quote]
Why was the Milwaukee's Cedar Rapids traffic greater than that generated by the C&NW (or CRI&P, also with good access to the main industrial area of Cedar Rapids)? And beyond that, there was pretty much nothing (especially compared with the parallel routes), which was proven in that most of the route across Iowa (east of Bayard, anyway) was able to be abandoned in one fell swoop in 1980, and before that between Marion and Tama in 1978.
The salient point is that UP didn't interchange much of the traffic with the Milwaukee in Omaha in what most certainly was a non-binding "promise." Moreover, it is amazing that those at the Milwaukee were (evidently) blinded to the inherent advantages of the C&NW route: Primarily the C&NW's Missouri River crossing between Missouri Valley and Fremont. With scores of movements daily by numerous railroads on the UP bridge between Omaha and Council Bluffs, looking forward the last thing UP would have wanted was to have even more traffic that could not use this alternate route. Indeed, today, UP uses the two routes between Missouri Valley and Fremont largely as a directional operation (eastward via Omaha, westward via Blair). In addition, the Blair routing is 24 miles shorter (between Chicago and Fremont). That's not insignificant in a 500-mile trek, especially since the additional 24 miles involves negogiating the Omaha and Council Bluffs terminals.
Hindsight might be 20/20, but so are current and past operational realities.
Mark Meyer
CMStPnP Wasn't it the Northern Pacific that used it's funds to build the Chicago Passenger Terminal before going bankrupt and relinquishing it's lease on WC?
Wasn't it the Northern Pacific that used it's funds to build the Chicago Passenger Terminal before going bankrupt and relinquishing it's lease on WC?
Yes, Grand Central Station in Chicago was built by NP subsidiary Chicago and Northern Pacific.
After awhile, this gets painful to read. "It's" can only be used as a contraction for the words "it is". Since the probable intention was not "reliquishing it is lease," then it should read, "relinquishing its lease."
CMStPnP And who would write this nonsense in a serious business analysis: "The Super Dome was not as successful as the dome cars ecause it lacked forward visibility which is the primary reason people ride dome cars"..........really? Is that from a passenger survey somewhere or is it railfan opinion? What about the tail car?
Hardly "railfan opinion" but rather the preponderance of evidence. On page 112 of Jim Scribbins' book The Hiawatha Story (generally considered to be the premier book on the Hiawathas), it states, "From a passenger viewpoint, the Super Domes were not the most successful of cars. The true advantage of a dome - forward visibility - was lost because the bulkheads were too high and the seats were too low. Also, the 12-wheel cars rode rough, at least by CMStP&P standards." Similar observations are made in other books about passenger trains and dome cars specifically. Cyrus Osborn is often considered to be the "father of the dome car" for his 1944 trip in the cab of a locomotive (through Glenwood Canyon) which eventually blossomed into the creation of the dome car concept at General Motors. Primarily he was most impressed with the foward view (he referenced it to the view from the fireman's seat). Moreover, I would challenge anyone to cite surveys, anecdotes or whatever stating this was not the case. Keeping things in context, the lack of forward dome car visibility was only one small part of the deficiencies which doomed the Olympian Hiawatha. And the "tail car" was called the "Skytop."
[/quote]
VerMontanan Keeping things in context, the lack of forward dome car visibility was only one small part of the deficiencies
Go figure because every current rail passenger operation I know of, The general public pays a premium for dome cars with obstructed forward visibility such as the Rocky Mountaineer............where only the lead car has forward visibility.
Not necessarily an issue on Superliner Lounge Cars either. Never heard a general passenger complain about lack of forward visibilty.
As for the rest of the analysis, I noticed in the State of Wisconsin at least a lot of the comparisons are not included. Example the C&NW ridgerunner and narrow gauge lines which were attempts to capture lead and zinc mining traffic in SW Wisconsin. ex-C&NW line, long ago removed. Former Milwaukee lines except for the Mineral Point branch........still in place.
C&NW did better in the Fox River Valley then Milwaukee did but C&NW overbuilt between Green Bay and Milwaukee with two seperate mainlines vs one for the Milwaukee which was more direct from North Milwaukee to Green Bay. Milwaukees line still in operation in places as are both C&NW lines. Niether is completely intact though. E&LS acquired the Milwaukee Line North of Green Bay that went onto the UP. Would like a comparison of Milwaukee Northern Lines as compared to C&NW and Soo. Because once again I think both C&NW and Soo overbuilt compared to the Milwaukee.
Maybe what passengers expected from dome cars 60 years ago is different from today.
The first dome car I ever rode was on a Hiwatha returning to Minneapolis from Chicago. I sensed the best direction to observe was forward, and the dome car utterly failed to make that possible while sitting in the seat. So I spent time standing up at the front seat and leaning on the big "dashboard" there. That view was great, but standing was tedious. So that is one passenger complaint.
EuclidThe first dome car I ever rode was on a Hiwatha returning to Minneapolis from Chicago. I sensed the best direction to observe was forward, and the dome car utterly failed to make that possible while sitting in the seat. So I spent time standing up at the front seat and leaning on the big "dashboard" there. That view was great, but standing was tedious. So that is one passenger complaint.
Which proves the point only the railfans are probably comparing and complaining about this difference. General rail passengers probably do not even notice and were happy enough with the expanded glass up the sides of the car.
Having ridden in "Sightseer" cars, I doubt that most of the people using them have any idea of the view that can be obtained in a short dome.
My first ride in a dome car came in 1964 when the IC borrowed domes from the NP and operated them on the Panama Limited (the "Pannyma" to IC employees whom I knew); I rode from Brookhaven to Canton one evening, just to ride in a dome. A lady in the dome noticed the signals and wondered about them, and I explained their use to her. She apparently appreciated the forward view. On later trips, on various trains, I noticed that many passengers seemed to appreciate the forward view.
Johnny
DeggestyI noticed that many passengers seemed to appreciate the forward view.
Which was not a full length dome either, in the shorter domes you have more forward visibility. Comparing Budd to Pullman Full Length Domes do you really have forward visibility out the front windshield in like.......seat #57? At any rate the goal of the dome car was not forward visibility it was to open more of the view to the mountains that could otherwise not be seen via coach windows.
Also, Milwaukee was economizing on passenger car purchases and that is why they hand built most of their own cars. The relied on Pullman for sleepers and the dome cars. Skytop Obs were really sleeper-lounges and they used Pullman for the long-distance versions. As compared to NP and GN, Milwaukee saved by it's own accounting several million per trainset by building it's own cars instead of relying entirely on external car builders. I think the first Hiawatha Trainsets in the 1930's that were entirely hand built as well as a WPA project. The figure was north of $3-5 million in savings if I remember correctly.
CMStPnP Euclid The first dome car I ever rode was on a Hiwatha returning to Minneapolis from Chicago. I sensed the best direction to observe was forward, and the dome car utterly failed to make that possible while sitting in the seat. So I spent time standing up at the front seat and leaning on the big "dashboard" there. That view was great, but standing was tedious. So that is one passenger complaint. Which proves the point only the railfans are probably comparing and complaining about this difference. General rail passengers probably do not even notice and were happy enough with the expanded glass up the sides of the car.
Euclid The first dome car I ever rode was on a Hiwatha returning to Minneapolis from Chicago. I sensed the best direction to observe was forward, and the dome car utterly failed to make that possible while sitting in the seat. So I spent time standing up at the front seat and leaning on the big "dashboard" there. That view was great, but standing was tedious. So that is one passenger complaint.
Well sure there are people that would not care about the limited visibility of the full length dome. But I doubt that it hinges on whether or not they are railfans. Every passenger is riding in a dome to be able to see things outside.
I also rode CB&Q and GN short domes, and they seemed to offer full visibility from the seats. I really don't know why the full length domes seemed to restrict visibility, but in the seats, it felt like sitting in a overly deep bathtub. Looking out the side windows was no better than the view from a coach. On the Q and GN, it seemed like you were sitting much higher in the car and could see right out over the roofs of the cars ahead.
This was my first and very strong impression of riding in a Milwauke dome. It came as a real surprise, and big disappointment, given the general impression I had gained of dome cars which were all about seeing outside better.
Yes, long domes, wheteher full length or the SP version do not offer a forward view to passengers who are seated. My point is that non-railfans do appresciate the forward view (even if they do not understand the signal systems).
http://newwww.weedroute.com/?p=8
Great thread with outstanding research provided by VerMontanan (Mark Meyer). I read almost all of the original "Myth" pdf and found it well researched.
Above is a link to a website that is quite fascinating. Two men in their 20s purchased a high rail car and motored across the out of service Milwaukee PCE from Miles City to Cedar Falls, Washington. The link provides their photos from their trip. Incredible that this trip occured.
I took one look at the amazing photo in June 2019, page 34-35 of Milwaukee Road crossing Clear Creek Trestle (St Paul Pass) and researched what I could on the PCE. The above link is a very historic look at the railroad post shutdown.
Has there been an abandoned railroad carrying more emotion and passion than the PCE / Milwaukee Road? The conversations 10 years ago were among the best ever on this forum.
Mark, your research is detailed and very instructional for this nonrailroader flatlander. You discussion on the grades of the 3 lines, with locomotive hour usage did more to educate me on the necessity of a proper route than anything previously read.
PCE viable today? Count my vote as no. Those repeating grades were (would be) brutal. BNSF holds quite a franchise across the Northern Tier.
Thanks for all the discussions on this.
Ed
EuclidI really don't know why the full length domes seemed to restrict visibility, but in the seats, it felt like sitting in a overly deep bathtub.
It was a design decision by Pullman to make the aisle flush with the floor of the seats so that you did not need to climb up and I think this meant the dome glass was not as tall resulting in the sloping front windshield. Budd elevated the seats.
Now before anyone argues with this by taking a recent picture of the current Milwaukee Road Super Domes still running..........they have all had their floors modified including the Super Dome owned by the Friends of the 261. In fact, I don't think there are anymore unmodified Milwaukee Road Super Domes running out there that have not had the upper floor modified.
You're probably thinking of the Iowa Pool, where the carriers east of Council Bluffs agreed to divide eastward UP traffic. It was devised in the 1870s and didn't last for too long. Everyone wanted a bigger slice of the pie than the pooling arrangement allowed. I believe the ICC outlawed pooling traffic in that matter.
UP's Council Bluffs yard complex still has what's called the "pool" yard. It's where they received interchange traffic from the different carriers. There are still a couple of tracks that reflect which railroad delivered on that track, like the "old Q" and the " old Rock" track.
Jeff
jeffhergertYou're probably thinking of the Iowa Pool, where the carriers east of Council Bluffs agreed to divide eastward UP traffic. It was devised in the 1870s and didn't last for too long. Everyone wanted a bigger slice of the pie than the pooling arrangement allowed. I believe the ICC outlawed pooling traffic in that matter.
There's a book about the Iowa Pool which I found fascinating. It's somewhere in this house, but I'm not sure where. The C&NW reached Council Bluffs in 1867. The Burlington and Rock Island arrived in 1869. At that time they either had a gold mine or an empty hole. The UP could play them off against each other.
So they formed a pool, agreeing amongst themselves to share the revenues. One of the railroads could take rate action to get more of the business. But it would have to share the added revenue with the other two. There was no written agreement, just a handshake deal between three railroads HQ'd in Chicago.
The Iowa Pool lasted an amazing 14 years. Most railroad attempts at cartels lasted around 14 hours. A railroad is volume hungry and the incentives for cheating in a cartel overwhelmed any possible benefits.
One reason for the ICC was to stabalize the cartels. To the detriment of the American People. It inevitably came back to cause great economic harm.
The Iowa Pool broke up when other railroads, IC, Milwaukee, Wabash, reached Council Bluffs and wanted a piece of the action. The Wabash, in particular, was ready to make a deal.
Thanks, Jeff. That good ole human nature can’t keep from being restless.
CMStPnPIt was a design decision by Pullman to make the aisle flush with the floor of the seats so that you did not need to climb up and I think this meant the dome glass was not as tall resulting in the sloping front windshield. Budd elevated the seats.
I remember riding an Amtrak (Budd?) dome about 30 years ago. More than one person (usually elderly) fell leaving their seat, not realizing there was a step down to the aisle floor.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.