greyhounds Lithonia Operator I read that in 1977 everything west of Miles City MT was relinquished or abandoned by the MILW. In simple terms, how much, if any, of that trackage ever saw trains again? It was 1980. Some few track miles west of Miles City were picked up by new short lines. BN took some mileage centered in South Dakota. The triangle of track linking Chicago, the Twin Cities, and Kansas City is now part of the CP and in play big time with the KCS merger. But, in general, the Milwaukee Road west of Miles City was ripped out. Actually, they ripped out another 45 miles east of Miles City a few years later.
Lithonia Operator I read that in 1977 everything west of Miles City MT was relinquished or abandoned by the MILW. In simple terms, how much, if any, of that trackage ever saw trains again?
It was 1980. Some few track miles west of Miles City were picked up by new short lines. BN took some mileage centered in South Dakota. The triangle of track linking Chicago, the Twin Cities, and Kansas City is now part of the CP and in play big time with the KCS merger.
But, in general, the Milwaukee Road west of Miles City was ripped out. Actually, they ripped out another 45 miles east of Miles City a few years later.
A few additions to the above timeline...
The Milwaukee abondoned the line east of Miles City about April 2nd 1982 (when the Falklands war started), news making the front age of the Miles City Star (was there for my grandmother's funeral). IIRC, the State of South Dakota bought the track and leased it to the BN. The 45 miles mentioned by Greyhounds was the Milw line between Miles City and Terry - the ony track connection between the Milw line and the NP line along the Yellowstone river was the interchange track just east of Miles City - switch points faced west on the NP line and east on the NP line. A connection was later made at Terry, which then allowed for the Milw track to be taken up.
(Been having issues posting this)
Backshop charlie hebdo So s series of "whaddaboutisms" to deflect from my original question/request. What did Mr. Sol do in this thread that some member complained about and then a moderator decided to delete Sol's posts. What TOS was violated? Is this the sort of forum members want? We can't answer your question because it's all supposition on your part. You may think that happened, but you have no evidence to support it.
charlie hebdo So s series of "whaddaboutisms" to deflect from my original question/request. What did Mr. Sol do in this thread that some member complained about and then a moderator decided to delete Sol's posts. What TOS was violated? Is this the sort of forum members want?
So s series of "whaddaboutisms" to deflect from my original question/request. What did Mr. Sol do in this thread that some member complained about and then a moderator decided to delete Sol's posts. What TOS was violated? Is this the sort of forum members want?
We can't answer your question because it's all supposition on your part. You may think that happened, but you have no evidence to support it.
It is a fact that the moderators acted. And contrary to what CMStPnP said, the moderators do not check the forums. That was stated clearly on here before. So there must have been a post or series of posts that were reported. What TOS was violated? Posts cannot be removed by a poster, such as Sol or Miningman or Wanswheel without a trace, only by the moderators. But since you disliked Sol's posts, this sort of club censure is just peachy keen by you?
charlie hebdoAnd contrary to what CMStPnP said, the moderators do not check the forums. That was stated clearly on here before. So there must have been a post or series of posts that were reported.
Moderators don't ever check the forum unless a post has been reported? That doesn't sound right to me.
Bad investments on the tail of speculative bubbles are par for the course. The pitch was clearly grabbing the Twin Cities Hill Lines interchange traffic and keeping it in house. Bad management and under-capitalization created costly routings to nowhere, that a modest core network (and good grain years) were insufficient to cross subsidize.
This Trains mainline tonnage map for '71-73 tells the tale. No tonnage means no revenue, and no borrowing against future revenues to improve the property. This was typical for mainlines abandoned in that era. As detailed in the link:
"One federal study published in the ’70s noted that routes below a threshold of 20 MGT had significantly higher maintenance and operating costs per ton-mile and that there were far more miles of track below 20 MGT than above it."
Re-examining the historical record is important. New facts come to light, a modern lens may change the historical focus. But the PCE was, and will remain, a bad investment.
charlie hebdo Backshop charlie hebdo So s series of "whaddaboutisms" to deflect from my original question/request. What did Mr. Sol do in this thread that some member complained about and then a moderator decided to delete Sol's posts. What TOS was violated? Is this the sort of forum members want? We can't answer your question because it's all supposition on your part. You may think that happened, but you have no evidence to support it. It is a fact that the moderators acted. And contrary to what CMStPnP said, the moderators do not check the forums. That was stated clearly on here before. So there must have been a post or series of posts that were reported. What TOS was violated? Posts cannot be removed by a poster, such as Sol or Miningman or Wanswheel without a trace, only by the moderators. But since you disliked Sol's posts, this sort of club censure US fine by you.
It is a fact that the moderators acted. And contrary to what CMStPnP said, the moderators do not check the forums. That was stated clearly on here before. So there must have been a post or series of posts that were reported. What TOS was violated? Posts cannot be removed by a poster, such as Sol or Miningman or Wanswheel without a trace, only by the moderators. But since you disliked Sol's posts, this sort of club censure US fine by you.
Can we please limit the discussion to the stated topic - the Milwaukee Road Pacific Coast Extension? If people would like to discuss forum moderation rules and how those rules have affected individuals over the years, then by all means create a new topic and have at it.
adkrr64 Can we please limit the discussion to the stated topic - the Milwaukee Road Pacific Coast Extension? If people would like to discuss forum moderation rules and how those rules have affected individuals over the years, then by all means create a new topic and have at it.
Euclid adkrr64 Can we please limit the discussion to the stated topic - the Milwaukee Road Pacific Coast Extension? If people would like to discuss forum moderation rules and how those rules have affected individuals over the years, then by all means create a new topic and have at it. In my opinion, the original topic of this thread has been completely destroyed. The topic presented only one side of a long running and contentious popular debate over whether or not building the Pacific Extension was a mistake in judgement by the management of the CM&StP. In the first post here, this viewpoint was put forth by one comprehensive paper by Mark Meyer. Then when Michael Sol entered the discussion with the other side of the debate and posted a wealth of information supporting the opposing viewpoint of Mark Meyer, all of Mr. Sol’s posts were removed from the thread with no explanation. While we don’t know the reason for this removal of one side of the debate, it strongly suggests that that there was a popular opinion that Mr. Sol’s information was not valid and so it was deemed to be disinformation by Kalmbach. Even though this has not been proven, in my opinion, if it is true, it not only was unfair to Mr. Sol, but also to Mark Meyer. This is because the apparent authoritarian removal of Michael Sol’s viewpoint without any explanation seems so heavy handed, that it actually weakens the case made by Mark Meyer; implying that it cannot stand on its own merit without censoring opposing views. In my opinion we would all be best served if both viewpoint were allowed to stand.
Exactly and well-stated, Euclid. There are pros and cons to the PCE. The nature of history is multiple opposing interpretations of events, with varying and changing degrees to certitude to any single view. But apparently not on here with a Brave New World policy.
CMStPnP Imagine if Milwaukee had money to partner with BN on PRB coal haulage and if BN was willing to take Milwaukee on as a partner? Imagine if Milwaukee had money to rebuild parts of the PCE to better operating parameters? Imagine if Milwaukee spun off or sold a large chunk of it's branch lines in the East prior to 1955 and used the money on the PCE.
Union Pacific would have put up a good fight to keep the Milwaukee out. Not only that the Milwaukee would not have needed to partner with BN. Both BN and MILW traverse(d) through significant lignite/sub-bituminous/bituminous deposits in eastern/central Montana. Milwaukee failed to find captive bulk traffic. Also consider there was ample time to develop this traffic before the state of Montana put a severance tax on coal beginning in 1975. I imagine this tax is what helped push the coal boom into Wyoming for the most part. With enactment of The Clean Air Act had MILW capitalized on Montana deposits. They probably could have provided some competition with BN/CNW PRB.
The problem with taking up the PCE discussion is that it Is one of those 'timeless topics' (like discussions of compounds vs. simples or the benefits of equalized driver axles) where the same arguments go forward and backwards, catnip to the same people, and there is never any 'synthesis'. (In addition, like discussions of graffiti, hobos and politics, discourse among friends starts degrading... as here.)
The PCE made sense to people with authority and money at the time, when electrification and the promise of effective 'express' traffic for things like silk were novel and alive. We might compare the development of the Virginian, in which Henry Huttleston Rogers and Standard Oil-derived money were enabling factors, or the Key West extension with a similar perceived raison d'etre.
That its enormous construction debt was kept 'on the books' through the critical times the line might have been brought into better shape in various ways is a major consideration; it does help to consider who the people who would have been discomnoded by that were. There is little doubt that by the early '70s (1) the opportunities were interesting, and (2) regardless of how wealthy the railroad might have been, there was no way to pay for even the deferred maintenance to bring the railroad to the necessary level to sustain the opportunities.
In a sense, the endgame here was very similar to the CASO, an even more superior routing that came to disappear when no one wanted it competitive...
I've noted in other contexts that there are similar places that changing circumstances made investments, even with superior construction and financial support, wither and die. The Atglen & Susquehanna and the Lackawanna Cutoff are two fairly dramatic examples. Imagine if the Keystone Air Line or the extended Sam Rea Line had actually been built as surveyed, with its massive fills and bridges and two-mile-plus tunnels built only to 100mph speeds and with contemporary track centers.
OvermodThe problem with taking up the PCE discussion is that it Is one of those 'timeless topics' (like discussions of compounds vs. simples or the benefits of equalized driver axles) where the same arguments go forward and backwards, catnip to the same people, and there is never any 'synthesis'. (In addition, like discussions of graffiti, hobos and politics, discourse among friends starts degrading... as here.)
So you say, but I did not see any examples of discourse degradation. Examples?
Perhaps for you, the discussion was repetitive of what you saw before from M. Sol. For some like me who never saw the earlier exchange, it was a lively and informative discussion, taking the boredom out of a cold mid-winter day.
Leo_AmesModerators don't ever check the forum unless a post has been reported? That doesn't sound right to me.
It is not correct and the current Moderator stated so. If you doubt what I say you can always PM the Moderator and ask. It's not a state secret.
I have never minded learning from Michael Sol, just as I have never minded reading Mark Meyer. The point of both is that they have done enormous research and provided even larger troves of source material, nearly immediately available, that would be impossible to find otherwise.
And yes, to have the content deleted is high-handed, small-minded, and short-sighted... in my opinion. I never banned anyone for discourse, although I spent considerable time first editing out vitriol and then, after the world changed, convincing them to change content that was not in the right "collegial spirit", shall we say?
And one more thing: we have standing to criticize the current style of moderation, as it were.
EuclidMr. Sol’s information was not valid and so it was deemed to be disinformation by Kalmbach.
I disagree. When you post about a prominent Trustee and Lawyer in Chicago, Illinois got an ulcer because he was lied to by so and so...............el zippo in the public record on just that item and no attribution. Potential issue with allowing that to be published but that is just my opinion. If you really want to know the why ask a MOD via PM vs the public specuation. The answer from the Mod could suprise all of us. Could be just Mr. Sol deleting his own posts which he had second thoughts about. I agree the thread has diverted enough down this path. Time to move on.
CMStPnP Euclid Mr. Sol’s information was not valid and so it was deemed to be disinformation by Kalmbach. I disagree. When you post about a prominent Trustee and Lawyer in Chicago, Illinois got an ulcer because he was lied to by so and so...............el zippo in the public record on just that item and no attribution. Potential issue with allowing that to be published but that is just my opinion. If you really want to know the why ask a MOD via PM vs the public specuation. The answer from the Mod could suprise all of us. Could be just Mr. Sol deleting his own posts which he had second thoughts about. I agree the thread has diverted enough down this path. Time to move on.
Euclid Mr. Sol’s information was not valid and so it was deemed to be disinformation by Kalmbach.
You are simply wrong. Only a moderator can remove a post without a trace. If you remove your list, you can only edit. You delete all your words but leave the word deleted or even a period.
If the moderators removed Sol and his posts because of fear of lawsuits from trustees of ~40 years ago, let them come forth and tell that to all of us.
charlie hebdo Is this the sort of forum members want?
Is this the sort of forum members want?
Yes. If someone was banned for going personal on accounts, like Sol did on Greyhounds, myself and others, then yes they should not be allowed back. Regardless of what screen name they post under.
An "expensive model collector"
n012944 charlie hebdo Is this the sort of forum members want? Yes. If someone was banned for going personal on accounts, like Sol did on Greyhounds, myself and others, then yes they should not be allowed back. Regardless of what screen name they post under.
Which is why he more than likely got banned again...Contrary to my earlier comment. It was in this threads best interest it would appear. Previous personal searches on forum members being used to attack them. Might as well get rid of him before it heads down the same path again..
SD60MAC9500 Both BN and MILW traverse(d) through significant lignite/sub-bituminous/bituminous deposits in eastern/central Montana. Milwaukee failed to find captive bulk traffic. Also consider there was ample time to develop this traffic before the state of Montana put a severance tax on coal beginning in 1975. I imagine this tax is what helped push the coal boom into Wyoming for the most part. With enactment of The Clean Air Act had MILW capitalized on Montana deposits. They probably could have provided some competition with BN/CNW PRB.
Both BN and MILW traverse(d) through significant lignite/sub-bituminous/bituminous deposits in eastern/central Montana. Milwaukee failed to find captive bulk traffic. Also consider there was ample time to develop this traffic before the state of Montana put a severance tax on coal beginning in 1975. I imagine this tax is what helped push the coal boom into Wyoming for the most part. With enactment of The Clean Air Act had MILW capitalized on Montana deposits. They probably could have provided some competition with BN/CNW PRB.
I think you are right on the part I underlined. The Milw had a pretty good profile for getting the coal in the Roundup area to back east, but the track was in pretty bad shape. If the severance tax had not been passed or had a lower rate for underground mines (e.g. Roundup), there's a reasonable chance that the Milw line east of Roundup would have survived for a few more decades.
I do remember hearing some of the Milw employees in Miles City talking about the Roundup coal prospects back in the 73 to 75 timeframe.
Euclid CMStPnP Euclid Mr. Sol’s information was not valid and so it was deemed to be disinformation by Kalmbach. I disagree. When you post about a prominent Trustee and Lawyer in Chicago, Illinois got an ulcer because he was lied to by so and so...............el zippo in the public record on just that item and no attribution. Potential issue with allowing that to be published but that is just my opinion. If you really want to know the why ask a MOD via PM vs the public specuation. The answer from the Mod could suprise all of us. Could be just Mr. Sol deleting his own posts which he had second thoughts about. I agree the thread has diverted enough down this path. Time to move on. Just to clarify: The sentence by me that you quoted above is only half of the full sentence that I wrote. Because of that, the meaning of the quoted sentence is not the meaning of my full sentence. Contrary to your quoted version of my sentence, I never said that Mr. Sol’s information was not valid. This was my full sentence: “While we don’t know the reason for this removal of one side of the debate, it strongly suggests that that there was a popular opinion that Mr. Sol’s information was not valid and so it was deemed to be disinformation by Kalmbach.” This is your quote of that sentence: “Mr. Sol’s information was not valid, and so it was deemed to be disinformation by Kalmbach.” Also to this point that you made above: “Could be just Mr. Sol deleting his own posts which he had second thoughts about.” He could have asked the moderator to delete his posts, but he alone could not have done it because it is not possible technically. But aside from that, I believe that if Mr. Sol decided to remove all of his posts with the help of the moderator, he would have told us why he was doing so. And I certainly can’t see him removing all his posts for the reason that he suddenly had second thoughts about them. On the contrary, he always seems to have an uncommonly firm confidence and commitment to his thoughts and statements.
Well, Euclid, there are very few members or moderators on here who actually are supporters of the marketplace of ideas. So step out of the current *party line* and prepare to be squashed. You have seen that for years on railroad crossings, safety appliances and other topics where a contrarian thread gets halted or even expunged after someone goes crying to mama moderator, "Please stop them!"
Tree has created a new thread specifically for whining, arguing and speculating.
So this thread could, hopefully, go back to being about the MILW western expansion.
Still in training.
Why does this thread still require a two-step to open?
Erik_Mag SD60MAC9500 Both BN and MILW traverse(d) through significant lignite/sub-bituminous/bituminous deposits in eastern/central Montana. Milwaukee failed to find captive bulk traffic. Also consider there was ample time to develop this traffic before the state of Montana put a severance tax on coal beginning in 1975. I imagine this tax is what helped push the coal boom into Wyoming for the most part. With enactment of The Clean Air Act had MILW capitalized on Montana deposits. They probably could have provided some competition with BN/CNW PRB. I think you are right on the part I underlined. The Milw had a pretty good profile for getting the coal in the Roundup area to back east, but the track was in pretty bad shape. If the severance tax had not been passed or had a lower rate for underground mines (e.g. Roundup), there's a reasonable chance that the Milw line east of Roundup would have survived for a few more decades. I do remember hearing some of the Milw employees in Miles City talking about the Roundup coal prospects back in the 73 to 75 timeframe.
Indeed. Wyoming's lower mine cost, thicker seams closer to surface is the advantage Wyoming has over Montana. Though MILW should have tried to work with what was available lacking a Wyoming connection. When it comes to surface mining most Montanan mines are surface mines.
Aside from the poorly conducted Booz Hamilton Allen study.. Here's how I would've proceeded. If people were "supposedly" concerned about competition in the region..
Abandon and spinoff everything west of Terry, MT as what would ultimately happen. Dump both deficit ridden Chicago-Lousiville, and Iowa mains. Slash and spinoff 75% of the branchline network. Leaving a core, Chicago-Milwaukee-Twin Cities-Montana, Chicago-KC, Montana-KC routes. The South Dakota Lines can be pruned as well. Most of that traffic moves to the PNW anyhow.
Intead of 11 Western Gateways MILW only gets one gateway. I'd give MILW trackage rights via Terry to Billings then up the Great Falls line to Sweet Grass/Coutts to allow interchange with CP. MILW could build it's own branch lines off the BN line to serve coal mines in Roundup area. As well the same for grain gathering branches around Lewiston and the Great Falls area.
Acquire a 4RL beef up the Montana-Midwest route and make it a coal conduit for interchange(s) in Chicago, and points south at KCMO. Possibly even send coal for export to Vancouver via CP at Sweet Grass/Coutts.
MILW originated Grain from Central Montana, South Dakota can go for interchange to CP via export at Vancouver, B.C..
Of course even with all these "what if's". I don't see the MILW surviving any longer than it did. Also CP was experiencing a traffic boom on it's western lines with capacity becoming scarce. So they may not have been able to accommodate the MILW traffic. I imagine the timeline played out as it should concerning the MILW..
CP would still preference the Soo - it gets them home to the CP transcon in fewer miles.
The idea of a minimum MGT is, I think, key. Lines West didn't have anywhere near 20 MGT fifty years ago, and doubtful even today they could source enough traffic to break even.
And even if they did, say in a world of model railroad economics with bottomless CAP-EX and OP-EX budgets providing new sub-grade, ballast, CWR, 10000ft sidings, power switches, PTC, notched or day-lighted tunnels, strengthened bridges and culverts, and with enough crews and locomotives to move it. The Lines West were so poorly profiled that network fluidity would seize up well before moving enough tonnage to make it profitable.
The thing was an impossibility.
SD60MAC9500Indeed. Wyoming's lower mine cost, thicker seams closer to surface is the advantage Wyoming has over Montana. Though MILW should have tried to work with what was available lacking a Wyoming connection. When it comes to surface mining most Montanan mines are surface mines. Aside from the poorly conducted Booz Hamilton Allen study.. Here's how I would've proceeded. If people were "supposedly" concerned about competition in the region.. Abandon and spinoff everything west of Terry, MT as what would ultimately happen. Dump both deficit ridden Chicago-Lousiville, and Iowa mains. Slash and spinoff 75% of the branchline network. Leaving a core, Chicago-Milwaukee-Twin Cities-Montana, Chicago-KC, Montana-KC routes. The South Dakota Lines can be pruned as well. Most of that traffic moves to the PNW anyhow. Intead of 11 Western Gateways MILW only gets one gateway. I'd give MILW trackage rights via Terry to Billings then up the Great Falls line to Sweet Grass/Coutts to allow interchange with CP. MILW could build it's own branch lines off the BN line to serve coal mines in Roundup area. As well the same for grain gathering branches around Lewiston and the Great Falls area. Acquire a 4RL beef up the Montana-Midwest route and make it a coal conduit for interchange(s) in Chicago, and points south at KCMO. Possibly even send coal for export to Vancouver via CP at Sweet Grass/Coutts. MILW originated Grain from Central Montana, South Dakota can go for interchange to CP via export at Vancouver, B.C.. Of course even with all these "what if's". I don't see the MILW surviving any longer than it did. Also CP was experiencing a traffic boom on it's western lines with capacity becoming scarce. So they may not have been able to accommodate the MILW traffic. I imagine the timeline played out as it should concerning the MILW..
My two cents.....
BN in my opinion was not a huge competitor for the Milwaukee Road during the time of the PCE. It is almost silly to claim that since all the PCE employee interviews I posted has a point of view of coexistence between BN and Milwaukee. In fact quite a few of those PCE Milwaukee employees came over from NP and the Hill lines prior to the BN merger. So I don't buy into BN as a fierce competitor. I look at the BN merger as an attempt to save some of the merged lines from bankruptcy vs a merger to dominate the Pacific NW market.
Second point is, Mr Sol is the first person I met that talked about Chicago to Louisville with a straight face. You can look at any coffee table book on the Milwaukee Road regarding the pictures of that line as well as route map. It was a patch work of trackage rights and various unrelated lines patched together by routes Milwaukee could run on. It was not a serious mainline operation. In fact Milwaukee's purpose of the line originally was to get access to the coal fields on lines in Southern Indiana vs serving Louisville per se. The most celebrated client they could land in Louisville was "Louisville Slugger" baseball bat company and just looking at a baseball bat and the capacity of a railroad car......I doubt that was a gold mine of traffic. I also doubt heavily the assertions that through traffic used this route or it was a money maker. I read Southern Railway was interested in making it a joint line with Milwaukee but Milwaukee did not have the money to do so and Southern railway was concerned with the patchwork of traffic rights.....some granted by it's competitors. Pretty sure L&N had the Chicago to Louisville traffic for the most part, along with Illinois Central.
Milwaukee had a relationship with Southern Railway I do not fully understand but Southern was one of the big locomotive lease providers and so was Chessie System during the bad winter of 1977 that bad ordered a large part of the Milwaukee's ageing locomotive fleet. BN didn't lease Milwaukee anything and only BN pool power for Coal Trains ran on Milwaukee. Likewise UP and SP did not lease to Milwaukee. GT leased some locos to Milwaukee as well.
In my opinion, the only point of the Louisville 'gateway' would be to rebuild it to sufficient quality to run bridge traffic, in that era probably primarily intermodal, over a similarly upgraded PCE to give assured end-to-end speed and QoS to and from PNW ports or other logical constellations of sources that could concentrate on a limited number of intermodal transfer facilities.
That could provide for the PNW something close to comparable to ATSF to Southern California.
That no real market for true high-speed intermodal actually developed in that era is perhaps a merciful blessing for the Milwaukee...
CMStPnPPretty sure L&N had the Chicago to Louisville traffic for the most part, along with Illinois Central.
Pretty far off. The IC did not serve Louisville. L&N did not serve Chicago until they acquired part of the C&EI.
charlie hebdoPretty far off. The IC did not serve Louisville. L&N did not serve Chicago until they acquired part of the C&EI.
As stated earlier and factually, Milwaukee only entered Indiana for the coal fields and to get access to the coal. It never reached Louisville until the 1970's but instead it's patchwork of Southern Indiana lines stopped short of the border with KY. It hauled coal on that line almost exclusively to Chicago. Not a lot of other traffic on it.
Milwaukee Road did not reach Louisville until 1973, well after the merger and as part of the condition of the L&N merger (with Monon). So the whole contention by Mr Sol that the PCE was valuable due to the Louisville connection is almost comedic because it was a coal line for originating coal to haul to Chicago and it really was not until 1973 that it reached Louisville via trackage rights at some point over Conrail most of the way down.
Secondly Illinois Central did serve Louisville from Chicago over a circuitous route via Paducah. IC also served Fort Knox, KY, Hopkinsville, KY (part of it taking over a part of Tennessee Central (TC)..........TC former mainline later served as the rail spur from Hopkinsville, KY to Fort Campbell, KY.....home of the World Famous 101st Airborne).
I lived in Louisville for a time and am pretty familiar with the rail routes there. The line from Louisville to Fort Knox is pretty cool with the grades and trestles as it climbs out of the Ohio River Valley.
CMStPnP: My error and apologies. I stand corrected.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.