The Great Northern Railroad

[Murphy Siding]

In reading things about the Great Northern, some things always seem to be presented as fact : James J. Hill is always portrayed as sort of a benevolent robber baron. The GN is always potrayed as the strong,independant ,profitable railroad that didn't need land grants to get to the Pacific. The BN merger was sort of a *technicality*, for tax purposes, as GN,NP,CBQ & SPS were under common ownership and management for some 70 years. Is this more the less way it was? or are we missing some details? Any good Great Northern historians out there?

[Anonymous]

It's simple: John Stevens stumbles across Marias Pass, and suddenly James Hill is a genius. Without Marias Pass, the GN would have been BY FAR the worst of the Northern transcons in terms of profile and alignment, worse than the Northern Pacific, worse than the Milwaukee, worse than the Union Pacific. Hill got lucky that one time, and that plus his feeding off the NP land grants over the years was enough to carry the GN over what was undoubtedly THE WORST crossing of the Cascades via Stevens Pass.

(Well, would you look at that! The whole history of the GN summed up in one consise paragraph. Betcha ya'll can't do that!)

[Murphy Siding]

(Well would you look at that! One whole paragraph, and I'm already confused![:)]). Without making me go up to the third floor of my house to look this up, which pass did the GN use to get over the mountains? Marias or Stevens pass. I thought NP went through a bankruptcy early on, allowing Hill "interests'' to aquire control of the NP. How did Hill feed off the NP land grants? How did GN do it without land grants?

[Anonymous]

GN crossed the Rockies via Marias Pass and the Cascades via Stevens Pass. They also had Haskill's Pass over the Salish Range just west of Glacier. In the book Lines West, it is claimed that the GN was looking to cross the Divide at Cut Bank Pass at about 7500' before Marias Pass was *discovered* at 5200'.

Why the GN chose to go over Stevens Pass rather than the already discovered Snoqualmie Pass (later used by the superior Milwaukee as the absolute best railroad crossing of the Cascades), or going down via the north bank of the Columbia River (later used by Hill's SP&S line) is not something I can answer. Yes, Hill did get the NP and it's land assets at a fire sale, and used the NP to help pay for the SP&S. Again, why would the NP help finance the building of the SP&S between Spokane and Pasco when the NP already had a line betwixt those towns, other than Hill made 'em? Should've been the PP&S instead, not the SP&S. (Isn't it ironic that after the BN merger it was the SP&S line between Spokane and Pasco that was torn out in favor of the inferior NP line?)

The GN's predecessor, the St Paul and Pacific, did have land grants which helped finance Hill's ambitions.

But you gotta admit, the Billy Goat symbol was pretty cool!

[eastside]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

(Well would you look at that! One whole paragraph, and I'm already confused![:)]). Without making me go up to the third floor of my house to look this up, which pass did the GN use to get over the mountains? Marias or Stevens pass.

Both. There are two notable mountain ranges, the Rockies (Marias) and the Cascades (Stevens), that a Northern Transcon must traverse. Later, the Stevens crossing was succeeded by the first Cascade tunnel (1900) and then the second Cascade tunnel (1929).

QUOTE:
I thought NP went through a bankruptcy early on, allowing Hill "interests'' to aquire control of the NP. How did Hill feed off the NP land grants?

NP and several other RRs in the Northwest went belly-up in the Great Panic of '73. Henry Villard bought the NP in 1881. Hill and Co. bought the "several other companies" and then proceeded to build their empire. In 1901, through JP Morgan & Co., the NP and GN jointly bought the CB&Q tried to merge into the Northern Securities Co. It was the government through the ICC and its anti-trust considerations that prevented the GN, NP, and CB&Q from combining formally. I wouldn't consider Hill a "robber barron," especially when you compare his behavior as measured against most of his contemporaries. He took great interest in running and improving the GN. The "Empire Builder" is justly named after him.

QUOTE:
How did GN do it without land grants?

Believe it or not, the GN was largely self-financed.

[PNWRMNM]

Murphy,

Get Don Hoffmer's history of the Great Northern and Albro Martin's biography of James J Hill.

What sets Hill apart from the others, in my opinion, is that he built his railroads to operate them. In practice this mean that in the early days he was out on the line "where the money was spent" controlling costs. He insisted on the most direct line with lowest grades attainable for the day. The result was by far the best overall profile which maximized the sixe of train that could be handled for a given amount of power in every era. This made him generallly the low cost producer, and therefore usually the stronger competitor.

Stories differ about Marias Pass. The most likely facts are that while the pass was not known when Hill started west, there was evidence of its existence. This notion is supported by the fact that Stevens basically took a single walk and found it.

Stevens Pass as originially built was certainly the highest and toughest of the Cascade Crossings. The original line was planned to be temporary and was replace within 10 years by the original Cascade Tunnel. At that point the line was marginally worse in terms of lenght of steep grade than the NP at Stampede Pass. The problem with Stevens proved to be snow, the Wellington Avalanch of March 1910 which killed about 100 people being the most extreem event. The new tunnel, completed in 1928 or 1929 gave a reasonalbe line, albeit with 2.2% asceding grades on both sides on the tunnel.

The claim that the Milwaukee had the best all the Cascade crossings is debateable. If you consider only Cle Elum to Renton I would agree as the approach to their tunnel Westbound is almost flat. The Eastboud climb was about 1.8% however, not much better than the GN and NP 2.2%

Weak spot was the climb from the Columbia River at Beverly to the top of the Saddle Mountains, about 20 miles of 2.2% with a short 1.6% descent on the other side. This createed two separate helper districts of greater aggregate length than eigther the NP or GN had, and theres were immedately adjacent on each side of their main range tunnels so a single fleet operating out of a single helper terminal was sufficient

The Union Pacific, as to a lesser extent the Central Pacific were built at inflated costs to provide the insiders of the construction company with immediate profits. This was actually a fairly common practice until tha panic of 1893.

Northern Pacific was built by two finaniers Jay Cooke and Henry Villard, and a series of Committees. Cooke's interest was underwritting fees on the securities issued. Villard bought control to protect his Oregon monopoly the Oregon Railway & Navigation on the South bank of the Collumbia. He finished the railroad but was not a detail man so the company was broke by the time he bought it.

Got to go to work, sorry for typos.

Mac

[nanaimo73]

Hey Murphy, I didn't know South Dakota had any 3 story buildings.
Great Northern also had a strong (and profitable) presence in the Minnesota iron ore belt.
The Great Northern was built by a Canadian (Hill) while Canadian Pacific was built by an American (Van Horne).

[Anonymous]

Wellington believed that route and ruling grade were of far greater importance than curvature and accumulative grades. The Milwaukee, NP, and GN lines all had a ruling grade of 2.2%, so in that aspect they all come in even. The Milwaukee was slightly shorter than GN and much shorter than NP, so in that aspect we'll still call it even between Milwaukee and GN. Of course, it could be that Wellington was speaking of localized segments rather than a whole regional profile.

Just for fun, Wellington also believed that switchbacks were preferable to reverse curves for achieving elevation. Can you imagine modern trains seesawing their way up and down mountain divisions? But, what can you expect from a book published in the 1880's?

[PNWRMNM]

Murphy,

I made an error about Villard and NP. NP was not broke when he secured control, it was by the time he finished the transcontinental line.

The point where the ex NP meets the ex OR&N near Wallula WA is still known as Villard Jct for routing purposes. NP originally had trackage rights on OR&N to Portland, then a line down the left bank of the Columbia to Goble with car ferry to Kalama WA, then North to Tacoma. After Villard lost control of the NP they built over Stampede Pass from Pasco to Tacoma.

Mac

[Murphy Siding]

I didn't mean to call JJ Hill a robber baron, as such. Several books sort of describe him that way, and I wondered why. The authors seemed to be saying that even though Hill was one of the good guys, he WAS in charge.

[Anonymous]

Unlike land grant railroads which often had completion deadlines, Hill built the GN a section at a time, developing traffic as he went. For example, he convinced his friend Weyerhauser to set up operations in the Pacific Northwest. The result was very profitable for both.

[kenneo]

One comment on the ruleing grades these systems have (had).

Although .4% doesn't seem as steep, the difference in tonnage trailing a locomotive is about 1,000 tons between 1.8% and 2.2%. A "single" up 1.8% is about 5,000 - 5,400 trailing tons (depending on curvature etc.); up 2.2% it is about 4,200 tons. It doesn't take too many trains to pay for the flatter grade.

[ottergoose]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

But you gotta admit, the Billy Goat symbol was pretty cool!

True! I recently saw a GN 174348, a woodchip car built 10/69, on a Progressive Rail train in Northfield MN.

[Murphy Siding]

Was his name Billy? I was thinking it was Rocky?

[nanaimo73]

Rocky it is
www.gnrhs.org/logos.htm

Their range includes South Dakota
www.cmzoo.org/rockymountaingoat.html

GN probably had some yard goats in Sioux Falls.

Where is VerMontanan ?

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

Rocky it is
www.gnrhs.org/logos.htm

Their range includes South Dakota
www.cmzoo.org/rockymountaingoat.html

GN probably had some yard goats in Sioux Falls.

Where is VerMontanan ?

They are very common in the Black Hills of SOUTH Dakota. I've seen them near Mt. Rushmore, and on the old ROW of the Crouch Line in the hills.

[PNWRMNM]

Eric,

Your statement about the impact of .4% difference in grade is true. It is even more true in the "flatlands".

Most sources give rolling friction to be equavalent in resistance to .2% grade. A line with .2% grade can support twice the train of a line with a .6% grade (.4% vs .8% equavalent grades). While not called a granger line, the GN hauled a lot of wheat out of Eastern Montana, North Dakota, and Minnesota. This is likely where Hill's obsession with the lowest possiblle grades paid off the best. Hundred car wheat trains behind a 2-8-2 were an everyday occurrance. Such trains would have been 7,000 - 7,500 tons.

Another example. In steam days the NP ran a fair number of trains over the SP&S between Spokane and Pasco Washington rather than over its own line. Why? Because the tonnage ratings on the SP&S, at .4% either way were double the tonnage ratings on the NP, at 1% each way.

Grades count. They impact operating costs on a ton mile basis by their effect on train size holding power constant, or requiring more and more power to move a given train. As your example points out, even if power is unlimited, the strength of drawbars is not, and drawbar strength will control train size even if power does not.

Mac

[GN-Rick]

Another reason that NP made so much use of the SP&S line
is that the clearances in Stampede Tunnel and tunnel #4 on
the Stampede Pass line restricted the railroad to using smaller,
less effective motive power in steam days. NP was unable to
run anything larger than a Z-3 2-8-8-2 or a class A or A-1 4-8-4
through these tunnels. Thus, NP's fleet of modern passenger
and freight power (A-3 through 5 and Challengers class Z-6
through 8) were kept out of the area. They were only able to
work as far west as Easton, Wa.-on the east approach to
Stampede Pass. Couple that with the grade issues and you
have clear economic and operational reasons for the use of the
water level grades (nearly) of the SP&S.

[kenneo]

Mac

The fruit of J J Hill's attention to grades is the fact that the Hi-Line (former GN) is BN's remaining East-West route to the Pacific Northwest. The NP main, even though still owned by BN, is now Montana Rail Link. The only part of the GN main that I am aware of that is not a BN artery is between Sandpoint and Spokane - and even that is still in operation by the BN and the POVA - and the only part of the NP main used is the part between Sandpoint and Spokane. HMMMMMM.

The SPS line between Pasco and Spokane was abandoned because the BN did not want to pay for the replacement of those huge trestles along the Snake where they climed out of the Snake to the Palouse. Until they decided to abandon, it was the Eastbound main between Pasco and Spokane and the NP main was the Westbound main.

And speaking of grades, it has always amazed me that the BN did not purchase the MILW between Ellensburg and Tacoma, and use it as their main stem, abandon Stampede, and relegate the GN line between Spokane and Everett to secondary status. In fact, there are several places where the BN could have used the MILW and downgraded the NP line between Terry and Tacoma.

Even though the BN did not do that, I understand why. They had a parallel line that was in reasonable shape (NP) and they would have had to completely rebuild the MILW track. $$$$$$$$$

Mudchicken could probably hold forth on this subject for days........so where is the mud covered rusty feathered one?

[PNWRMNM]

Kenno,

I am a Washington Boy, grew up in Wenatchee and have rode over both Stevens and Stampede several times.

If the BN were to use Snoqualmie it would ave been from Easton to Black River. The reason I suspect they did not is that by the time of the merger, and likely in anticipation of it, the GN between Spokane and Seattle was all CTC with plenty of sidings for the traffic. The NP was only doing two or three trains a day each way which were easily rerouted to the GN and SP&S. Between Spokane and Seattle the NP was about 60 miles longer than the GN and about two hours longer for passenger trains. I know this because my uncle was a conductor on the NCL and Mainstreeter when I was in my teens. There was no reason to drag the freight an extra 60 miles, which is about 20% extra. The only reason Stampede lasted as long as it did was Amtrack.

I am told that BN bought the Snoqaulmie line. I do not know if that is true or not. If they did not have any traffic for Stampede they had none for Snoqualmie. Street running through Renton was then a pain and would doubless be much worse today.

Mac

[PNWRMNM]

Eric,

About the big bridges on the SP&S. I think the cost to rebuild them is a bit of a ghost story, even though it is the official story.

Those bridges are relatively new, 1908 or so, and would probably not yet need much work. A wiser plan than ripping up the track would have been to take it out of service. When the NP started to need double tracking, a point passed years ago, they could have taken down the bridges, built a 40 foot diameter arch over the creek at the bottom of the draw and built a sold fill using the rock immediately available on the upslope side of the railroad. Even if they had to haul rock a mile, so what, they already own it. The only cost would be blasting and hauling.

Taking out the SP&S between Spokane and Pasco was a colosal blunder in terms of crew time, locomotive utilization, and fuel consumption.

Mac.

[nanaimo73]

BN bought 54 miles of the Milwaukee main from Maple Valley to Cabin Creek (just west of Easton) as well as 11 miles from Cedar Falls to Snoquamie Falls. They tore up the 37 miles from Cedar Falls to Cabin Creek (without ever using it) starting in October of 1987 and the Maple Valley to Snoquamie Falls was used until 1990.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

The SPS line between Pasco and Spokane was abandoned because the BN did not want to pay for the replacement of those huge trestles along the Snake where they climed out of the Snake to the Palouse. Until they decided to abandon, it was the Eastbound main between Pasco and Spokane and the NP main was the Westbound main.

I don't believe the trestles were that much of a concern. There was also the small matter of the SP&S line into Pasco from the south, while the Pasco yard ran to the north-northeast parallel to the NP line. Any BN traffic from Spokane on the SP&S line bound for reclassification at Pasco would have to treat entry into the yard like a spur rather than a siding, shoving and pulling cars all from the south end of the yard, which would have greatly complicated yard operations.

One obvious option which the rail professionals at BN neglected to analyze was to keep the SP&S line from Spokane to Kahlotus, then rebuild the old OR&N branch from Kahlotus to Connell, where the NP line would be utilized the rest of the way to Pasco. The Connell to Kahlotus line was nearly level running through the Washtucna Coulee, so the entire route from Cheney to Pasco would have been ideal grade wise, and would have avoided the higher maintenance costs of the tunnels and trestles along the Snake River.

QUOTE:
And speaking of grades, it has always amazed me that the BN did not purchase the MILW between Ellensburg and Tacoma, and use it as their main stem, abandon Stampede, and relegate the GN line between Spokane and Everett to secondary status. In fact, there are several places where the BN could have used the MILW and downgraded the NP line between Terry and Tacoma.

BN actually looked at purchasing the Milwaukee line from Lind to the Puget Sound. The 2.2% up the Saddle Mountains wasn't any worse than the 2.2% up Chumstick Canyon and the eastern approach to the Cascade Tunnel, and the Milwaukee's eastbound ruling grade of 1.74% was(is) so much better than the 2.2% eastbound grades of Stampede and Stevens Pass lines. BN could have consolidated coast-bound traffic to as far as Lind or Macall (depending on if they chose the NP or SP&S west of Spokane), then split off the Puget Sound traffic over the ex-Milwaukee line while keeping the Portland traffic on the NP/SP&S line to Pasco and the Gorge. Then they could have abandoned the Stevens Pass line (with the limited capacity and high maintenance expense of the Cascade Tunnel), abandoned the NP from Cheney to Sprague, sold the Eastern Washington GN line to a shortline operator, sold the NP line from Sprague south to a shortline operator. BN did buy the Snoqualmie Pass line, partly to potentially use that as a replacement for the Stampede Pass line, but for some reason when the decision came to re-open one of the I-90 lines they chose Stampede over the Snoqualmie line. Go figure.

BTW, the State of Washington does own most of the Milwaukee Corridor from Puget Sound to the Idaho stateline, so there is always the possibility of some parts of the ex-Milwuakee line being revived as traffic warrants. The tightrope BNSF must walk in this situation is to get the taxpayers of the State of Washington to pay for the rebuilding of the line, while somehow allowing BNSF to keep other operators off the property. You just gotta love our closed access rail system!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73
Where is VerMontanan ?

He's over on the Milwaukee Road thread frothing up more Hiawatha bashing. Apparently his obsession with the GN is nothing compared to his hatred of the Milwaukee!

[VerMontanan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

It's simple: John Stevens stumbles across Marias Pass, and suddenly James Hill is a genius. Without Marias Pass, the GN would have been BY FAR the worst of the Northern transcons in terms of profile and alignment, worse than the Northern Pacific, worse than the Milwaukee, worse than the Union Pacific.

Considering the source, this statement is not a surprise.

"Stumble?" Marias Pass was well known by the Blackfeet Indians in the area, so the existence of Marias Pass was not much of a secret. The Rocky Mountains are an extensive chain, so it's not like the "discovery" of the pass was pure luck, he was looking in this area for a reason.

And the point of such a post is ridiculous. So WHAT IF the GN had not found Marias Pass? What does that matter? The FACT is that they did, and the rest is history.

But let's play "what if" just to prove Futuremodal wrong, as usual, with his statement that then "the GN would have been BY FAR the worst of the Northern transcons in terms of profile and alignment."

OK....WHAT IF the GN had a crossing of the Continental Divide similar to that of the Milwaukee Road over Pipestone Pass? Assuming the remainder of the GN route to be the same (one has to have such "givens" playing "what if"), GN trains west from Minneapolis would (as now) only confronting a maximum grade of .65 percent. West of Havre to whatever-crossing-this-woud-be-that-would-be-as-steep-as-Pipestone-Pass, the grade have sections of 1 percent. Meanwhile, on the the Milwaukee east of the Divide, their first 1 percent grade would be way back in South Dakota at Summit, and west of Harlowton, the 1.4 percent "doubling" grade at Loweth. Eastbound from the Divide, the GN route would not have a grade (as it is now) over .8 percent, where the MILW had a very long climb at 1 percent through Sixteen Mile Canyon.

West of the Divide, GN trains, west of whatever-crossing-this-woud-be-that-would-be-as-steep-as-Pipestone-Pass, would deal with no grade more than .7 percent westbound and .8 percent eastbound between there and Spokane. Meanwhile, on the MILW, trains would have to climb (in both directions) the 1.7 percent St. Paul Pass over the Bitterroots.

Between the Twin Cities and Spokane, even playing "what if", the GN route wins hands down. West of Spokane (using this as a common point, for freight service, Spokane was really on a MILW branch), the MILW was better, but only nominally so. Both routes had a westbound 2.2 percent climb; eastbound the GN had a 2.2 percent climb, and the MILW two major hills at 1.74 and 1.6 percent. However, unlike the MILW, which had only one route, GN had the option of moving trains via their SP&S subsidiary between Spokane and Vancouver/Portland with grade in each direction of less than one percent. While the MILW didn't serve Portland until after the BN merger, the SP&S route for GN traffic can best be compared to MILW route for traffic to/from Longview, Washington, which was served by the MILW all along. In this case, GN would route traffic on the SP&S to Vancouver and north, while the MILW, having no alternative to its 2.2 percent climb over the Saddle Mountains, would then have to push it up 3 percent Tacoma Hill.

In other words, since the GN had only one major hill on its westward route and the Milwaukee four, inserting another hill on the GN route isn't going to dethrone it from being the superior route.

As ridiculous as the "what if" scenario proposed by futuremodal is with regard to a comparison between the GN and MILW, the "what if" of the GN and the UP is even more confusing because the UP crossing of the Continental Divide (in the Red Desert of Wyoming) is just about flat (it's in Oregon where the UP has most of the big hills), so it's difficult know where to begin here. As for a comparison between GN and NP routes "what if" GN didn't have Marias Pass and the GN subsequently being "far worse" than the NP alignment, I will leave to futuremodal to explain how, operationally, the GN route between the Twin Cities and Havre (.6 percent eastbound, .65 percent westbound) is inferior to the one percent grades encounted by the NP between the Twin Cities and Livingston at places like Peak, Jamestown, Fryburg, and Beaver Hill. Additionally, he could explain the benefits of 1.8 percent westbound and 1.9 percent eastbound grades over Bozeman Pass between Livingston and the Continental Divide as opposed to the GN's 1 percent westbound and .8 percent eastbound profile in the corresponding area between Havre and the "what if" pass (if it wasn't Marias).

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Hill got lucky that one time, and that plus his feeding off the NP land grants over the years was enough to carry the GN over what was undoubtedly THE WORST crossing of the Cascades via Stevens Pass.

(Well, would you look at that! The whole history of the GN summed up in one consise paragraph. Betcha ya'll can't do that!)

I'd be interested in documentation that GN ever (prior to the 1970 merger) benefitted speficially from the NP land grants. Such was never the case.

As for the GN crossing of the Cascades being "undoubtedly" the worst, the doubts are only those among us non-conspiracy theorists who wonder: Well, then why is it still the main route across the Cascades and the only one in continuous use since it was opened?

[VerMontanan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

Eric,

Grades count. They impact operating costs on a ton mile basis by their effect on train size holding power constant, or requiring more and more power to move a given train. As your example points out, even if power is unlimited, the strength of drawbars is not, and drawbar strength will control train size even if power does not.

Mac

This really summarized the superiority of the GN route and why it is the major route across the Northern Tier to this day, and it becomes even more exaggerated as the trains get bigger. Shuttle grain trains approaching 16,000 tons move without helper power or helper crews with minimal distributed power on the ex-GN main line over the Continental Divide. Meanwhile, on Montana Rail Link (ex-NP), they are helped at Livingston, Townsend, and with two sets of helper helpers at Helena. On the ex-GN route across Marias Pass, the trailing tonnage limit for trains without Grade E steel couplers is 10,800 tons. Over Mullan pass on MRL it's 5,500 tons. On Union Pacific, there is more or less a continuous helper district from Nampa, Idaho to Hinkle, Oregon.

As this post points out, even unlimited power is no solution for steep grades, especially when capacity it strained as traffic increases. In today's world, as traffic builds, the ability to move larger trains with less power will only make the ex-GN route all the more attractive.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by VerMontanan

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

It's simple: John Stevens stumbles across Marias Pass, and suddenly James Hill is a genius. Without Marias Pass, the GN would have been BY FAR the worst of the Northern transcons in terms of profile and alignment, worse than the Northern Pacific, worse than the Milwaukee, worse than the Union Pacific.

Considering the source, this statement is not a surprise.

"Stumble?" Marias Pass was well known by the Blackfeet Indians in the area, so the existence of Marias Pass was not much of a secret. The Rocky Mountains are an extensive chain, so it's not like the "discovery" of the pass was pure luck, he was looking in this area for a reason.

And the point of such a post is ridiculous. So WHAT IF the GN had not found Marias Pass? What does that matter? The FACT is that they did, and the rest is history.

But let's play "what if" just to prove Futuremodal wrong, as usual, with his statement that then "the GN would have been BY FAR the worst of the Northern transcons in terms of profile and alignment."

OK....WHAT IF the GN had a crossing of the Continental Divide similar to that of the Milwaukee Road over Pipestone Pass? Assuming the remainder of the GN route to be the same (one has to have such "givens" playing "what if"), GN trains west from Minneapolis would (as now) only confronting a maximum grade of .65 percent. West of Havre to whatever-crossing-this-woud-be-that-would-be-as-steep-as-Pipestone-Pass, the grade have sections of 1 percent. Meanwhile, on the the Milwaukee east of the Divide, their first 1 percent grade would be way back in South Dakota at Summit, and west of Harlowton, the 1.4 percent "doubling" grade at Loweth. Eastbound from the Divide, the GN route would not have a grade (as it is now) over .8 percent, where the MILW had a very long climb at 1 percent through Sixteen Mile Canyon.

West of the Divide, GN trains, west of whatever-crossing-this-woud-be-that-would-be-as-steep-as-Pipestone-Pass, would deal with no grade more than .7 percent westbound and .8 percent eastbound between there and Spokane. Meanwhile, on the MILW, trains would have to climb (in both directions) the 1.7 percent St. Paul Pass over the Bitterroots.

Between the Twin Cities and Spokane, even playing "what if", the GN route wins hands down. West of Spokane (using this as a common point, for freight service, Spokane was really on a MILW branch), the MILW was better, but only nominally so. Both routes had a westbound 2.2 percent climb; eastbound the GN had a 2.2 percent climb, and the MILW two major hills at 1.74 and 1.6 percent. However, unlike the MILW, which had only one route, GN had the option of moving trains via their SP&S subsidiary between Spokane and Vancouver/Portland with grade in each direction of less than one percent. While the MILW didn't serve Portland until after the BN merger, the SP&S route for GN traffic can best be compared to MILW route for traffic to/from Longview, Washington, which was served by the MILW all along. In this case, GN would route traffic on the SP&S to Vancouver and north, while the MILW, having no alternative to its 2.2 percent climb over the Saddle Mountains, would then have to push it up 3 percent Tacoma Hill.

In other words, since the GN had only one major hill on its westward route and the Milwaukee four, inserting another hill on the GN route isn't going to dethrone it from being the superior route.

As ridiculous as the "what if" scenario proposed by futuremodal is with regard to a comparison between the GN and MILW, the "what if" of the GN and the UP is even more confusing because the UP crossing of the Continental Divide (in the Red Desert of Wyoming) is just about flat (it's in Oregon where the UP has most of the big hills), so it's difficult know where to begin here. As for a comparison between GN and NP routes "what if" GN didn't have Marias Pass and the GN subsequently being "far worse" than the NP alignment, I will leave to futuremodal to explain how, operationally, the GN route between the Twin Cities and Havre (.6 percent eastbound, .65 percent westbound) is inferior to the one percent grades encounted by the NP between the Twin Cities and Livingston at places like Peak, Jamestown, Fryburg, and Beaver Hill. Additionally, he could explain the benefits of 1.8 percent westbound and 1.9 percent eastbound grades over Bozeman Pass between Livingston and the Continental Divide as opposed to the GN's 1 percent westbound and .8 percent eastbound profile in the corresponding area between Havre and the "what if" pass (if it wasn't Marias).

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Hill got lucky that one time, and that plus his feeding off the NP land grants over the years was enough to carry the GN over what was undoubtedly THE WORST crossing of the Cascades via Stevens Pass.

(Well, would you look at that! The whole history of the GN summed up in one consise paragraph. Betcha ya'll can't do that!)

I'd be interested in documentation that GN ever (prior to the 1970 merger) benefitted speficially from the NP land grants. Such was never the case.

As for the GN crossing of the Cascades being "undoubtedly" the worst, the doubts are only those among us non-conspiracy theorists who wonder: Well, then why is it still the main route across the Cascades and the only one in continuous use since it was opened?

Hmmm. No mention of Haskell's Pass. No mention of the convaluted routing through Spokane. No mention of the original Cascade line. No mention of all the reroutes GN had to build. No wonder, considering the source.

The original Manitoba had it's western terminus at Great Falls, where it connected with the Montana Central to Butte. The GN's "PCE" started from Havre. Reroute #1. 115 or so miles of mainline track wasted, relegated to branchline status

The original route west of Glacier ran over Haskell's Pass at 4100' elevation and with 1.6% grades. Hill later built the Rexburg line and abandoned the Haskell's Pass line. Reroute #2. 105 miles or so of mainline track wasted, with 90 or so abandoned and the remaining 15 relegated to branchline status.

The original route between Troy and Bonners Ferry ran high up the north bank of the river with 0.8% grades and a high bridge over the Moyie River. The GN later rebuilt the line at water level on the south side. Reroute #3. 20 or so miles of mainline track wasted. (The segment from Bonners Ferry to the Moyie River was later utilized by the Spokane International.)

The original route over the Cascades (not counting the temporary switchback route) ran along Tumwater Canyon and through the old Cascade tunnel, with 2.2% grades on each side, a 1.7% eastbound grade inside the tunnel, and the miles of showsheds between Wellington (renamed Tye as a PR stunt after the disasterous slide which killed over 100 people) and Scenic. Finally, the GN built the new Cascade Tunnel and the Chumstick cutoff in the 1920's. Reroutes #4 and #5. Miles of mainline track wasted: About 35 miles total. It should also be noted that this massive project "reduced" the grades from 2.2% on the old lines to 2.2% on the new lines, and the eastbound grade in the tunnel was reduced from 1.7% in the old tunnel to 1.7% in the new tunnel.

After the BN merger, the original route through Spokane was abandoned in favor of the NP route, and new bridges constructed over Latah Creek and Indian Canyon. The rest of the GN from Spokane to Sandpoint was eventually abandoned and/or branchlined, so effectively the GN from north of Sandpoint to the west plains of Spokane was no longer needed. Reroute #6. Another 90 or so miles of mainline track wasted. (sources: Across the Columbia Plain by Peter J Lewty, Lines West by Charles R. Wood)

That's roughly over 360 miles worth of reroutes over the years. 360 miles worth of wasted capital so far. That's an awful lot of cosmetic surgery needed to be crowned the "best" of the Northern Transcons. Phyllis Diller should have been so lucky. If the Milwaukee, NP, or UP had even a fraction of such reroutings available to them, any one of those roads could have easily put the GN to shame in terms of best route title. Only the CP with it's Rogers Pass projects even comes close to that level of cosmetic surgery.

When Libby Dam was built, the BN opted to reroute via the Flathead tunnel route. Of course, since the Corps of Engineers was paying for it, BN could have chosen just about any type of realignment, and the Flathead tunnel line did reduce mileage somewhat, but at the cost of yet another tunnel needing to be cleared of smoke and gas before another train can use it. You would think the folks at BN would have learned the lesson from the difficulty of keeping the Cascade Tunnel fluid, and opted a different route without the need for a 7 mile tunnel. The Corps was responsible for rebuilding to BN's demands, and by the 1970's even BN could see that the route of U.S. Highway 2 between Kalispel and Libby managed to stay under 4000' running along the gentle valley of McGregor Lake. BN could have even opted to rebuild along the original Haskell's Pass route with a new 4 mile tunnel under Haskell's Pass. But for some reason, BN likes longer tunnels that are harder to clear out, and BN apparently didn't want to abandon the Whitefish yard with a Kalispel reroute.

[Murphy Siding]

In reading another thread( the Milwaukee Road one) ,it was mentioned that the operating ratio of BN was similar to the averaged operating ratios of the four pre-merger roads. Since the same people pretty much ran all 4 Hill Roads, was there much change after the merger. I mean, other than 1 million gallons of Cascade Green paint?[:)]

[VerMontanan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

That's roughly over 360 miles worth of reroutes over the years. 360 miles worth of wasted capital so far. That's an awful lot of cosmetic surgery needed to be crowned the "best" of the Northern Transcons. Phyllis Diller should have been so lucky. If the Milwaukee, NP, or UP had even a fraction of such reroutings available to them, any one of those roads could have easily put the GN to shame in terms of best route title. Only the CP with it's Rogers Pass projects even comes close to that level of cosmetic surgery.

Shoulda Woulda Coulda. What does that have to do with it?: NOTHING. Exactly the same as your ridiculous statement suggesting that IF the GN didn't have Marias Pass the route wouldn't be so great. Not only were you totally incorrect, but that, much like that GN rebuilt much of its railroad has nothing to do with anything because the FACT is that they did, and were all the more stronger because if it. Your ignoring the massive line changes along the Northern Pacific in North Dakota and along the Union Pacific in Wyoming and the Blue Mountains notwithstanding, the bottom line is: The GN route came out on top. If the other railroads could have achieved a superior profile with a change in route, why didn't they do it? And, much like the Milwaukee thread where Mr. Sol touts the many successes of the Milwaukee Road which went into bankruptcy more than once, the Great Northern never did, and was the only railroad to the Pacific Northwest that never did so. Without a doubt, GN's superior route was improved and improved, and by doing so they were no worse for the wear.

I also doubt that there was any way for the MILW And NP to overcome their steep crossings of the Continental Divide without a longer tunnel, and/or a tremendous amount of capital expenditure that they obviously were not in a position to make. Same for the MILW over St. Paul Pass and the Saddle Mountains. The MILW did the line change at Loweth, and still wasn't able to get the grade lower than the GN crest of the Continental Divide. So, there's little reason to believe, as usual, that your point as any merit.

Speaking of as usual, you also didn't respond to my request for you to explain how the NP route across North Dakota is operationally superior to the GN route across that same state, or the rest of the NP route using your "what if" scenario. If you lack sufficient historical data, a description of the operation of the respective routes today will do just fine.

[nanaimo73]

Speaking of the Milwaukee Road, the first several miles of the PCE and the bridge over the Missouri west of Mobridge, SD were built by the USACE in the early 1960s due to the Oahe dam.