The Great Northern Railroad

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gngoatman88

Of all the Hill lines, the NP was the shaky one. It went bankrupt a number of times before Hill bought it out due to its poor financial footing, poor ROI, and bad management. An interesting tidbit I read somewhere a while back, the COMBINED operations of the MILW and the NP together were something less than 50% of the traffic that the GN carried. The NP was about 40% and the MILW about 10% of what GN carried. That should tell something right there about what line was better and which company was managed better.

What is your source for this claim?

QUOTE: Hill built the GN to be an efficient carrier of freight and did it without federal land grants.

You should remember that the original GN alignment was not something to brag about, and the GN's Cascade crossing by far was the worst of the three. It took alot of later reroutes to achieve the ostensible GN profile superiority. Haskell's Pass, Stevens Pass, the Kootenai/Moyie River area, and finally the SP&S into Portland. Hill would not have been able to achieve this massive realignment of the GN had he not had access to the NP and it's land grants. You should note that ALL of the ex-NP transcon is still intact, while the GN mainline Sandpoint to the West Plains of Spokane is gone or no longer mainline. The Milwaukee had the option of rerouting at two areas - a new "Cascade"-like tunnel under St. Paul Pass and a reroute via Great Falls and Cadette Pass - but chose (for better or worse) to electrify the mountain sections of it's mainline. The NP apparently had no options/funds for it's "wish list" of alignment improvements, and Hill made no effort to gift the NP with a new Cascade Tunnel under Stampede Pass or a longer lower tunnel under Mullan Pass. The GN got all the upgrades, while the NP and CB&Q got nothing from Hill.

QUOTE:
The MILW was doomed to failure because it was just too late in the game when it decided to expand to the Pacific. It went bankrupt, I believe several times, in the process and could never generate much traffic because all the territory was already saturated by GN, NP & UP interests. I believe it was one of the receivership ressurections of the MILW that added the "Pacific" part to the name, maybe in the 1930's??? I'm not much of an historian on MILW matters. As one might discern, I'm a James Hill admirer. He had his faults, but you have to say he built a good railroad that never went bankrupt and always paid its own way. You can't say that about ANY of the other transcontinentals.

To say the Milwaukee was doomed to failure due to being the last of the PNW transcons is a nonsensical statement. At best, the toll of being last into the PNW resulted in some higher land aquisition costs, and Milwaukee may have had to deal with higher labor costs than either GN or NP, both of which contributed to a higher than expected cost of PCE construction and was ultimately a major contributing factor to it's first bankruptcy a few years later. However, the other railroads also experienced bankruptcies, so having experienced a bankruptcy or two does not necessarily correlate into an eventual line abandonment, as the ex-NP line, ex-SP line, and the UP line into the PNW still exist. Milwaukee's ultimate PCE demise was due to political influence, no doubt greatly aided by the Hill/BN interests, and not by anything else. Even by the standards of relative line profiles as being the deciding factor in a line existing today or not (not a clear cut analysis by any means), the Milwaukee PCE at least had the second best profile of the PNW transcons, and was far superior to either the NP line or the UP line, or the SP line up from California for that matter. Yet, the PCE is gone while the NP, UP, and SP lines are still in play. Obviously, other factors played a far greater role in the PCE's demise than having the second best profile of the 5 PNW trancons (GN, NP, UP, Milw, and SP).

And since GN effectively took over the NP and CB&Q via the Hill proxy, you cannot make the statement that GN "paid its own way." GN piggybacked on the other Hill lines to avoid it's probable bankruptcy fate.

JJ was a shrewd businessman, who knew how to exploit other assets to buttress his "baby". However, if indeed one were to bestow the label of "great railroad man" on Hill, the way he left the NP and CB&Q in shambles would speak otherwise.

[PNWRMNM]

Futuremodal,

The last two paragraphs of your previous posts are pure bunk. What does the next to last para mean? What is your source for "left the NP and CBQ in shambles"?

If you do not like Hill, that is your right, but you owe the newbies the straight facts. You and the facts have a distant relationship at times.

Mac

[randyaj]

Mac,
Dave's distain for Great Northern is well known to some on this list. I am not sure why but if a post is made extoling the positives of GN, be sure that Dave will want to argue. Well here are some common sense facts.
Fact: Hill built the Great Northern railroad without federal grants, with considerable financial risk to his company.

Fact: Northern Pacific took advantage of the federal land grant program. Not wrong or right, just a fact.

Fact: Hill's line was profitable enough in relationship to the NP that he could purchase a controling interest. If the NP was a better, more profitable route; then Hill would never have had the opportunity to purchase his share.

Fact: Northern Pacific had financial problems as early as before the end of the 19th century. Great Northern was running a profitable operation, inspite of having to rebuild the mainline over the Cascades twice at a huge cost. GN's profits did shrink in the 40's and 50's, but if memory serves correctly, they were showing a profit up to the merger.

Now I have never entered into this fray before because GN may be my favorite road, but I love the Northern Pacific as well, and this debate seems too often to be a love-hate relationship. Just my two cents,
Randy

[ironhorseman]

Having not read past post number 2 in this topic which is by now up to at least a dozen pages I'm just going to go off on a wild tangent at take a jab at the naming of this railroad.

Just how big headed do you have to be to label your railroad as in "Great?" What was so "great" about the Great Northern. Why couldn't have been the Wonderful Northern or the Fabulous Northern? Was it not good enough to be the Spectacular Northern? If Mr. James J. Hill had tried harder maybe he could have had a Stupendous Northern or even an Outstanding Northern. I mean, if it was just going to be 'great' from the get-go what was stopping him from making it a Terrific Northern?

You'd have to wonder why other railroads wern't as concieted in their namings. Take Union Pacific for instance and turn it into Awesome Pacific. Norfolk Southern can be renamed Narley Southern and CSX could be Super CSX. Let's make Canadian Pacific the Cool Pacific and Canadian National Cowabunga National.

One has to wonder how different the Boston & Maine could've been if named the Bombdikity & Maine or if New York Central had been called the New York Emporer. And take all those other railroads with the name Pacific in them and take out Pacific. Because Pacific means calm, pacificist, like the ocean, although the ocean is pretty big. You might even say the Pacific is great. But take out Pacific and replace with words like Southern Superstars or Northern Outstanding or Texas & Terrific. Or leave Pacific in, I don't care, just call it something like Wild, Wild Western Pacific.

Airlines could then follow suit. Great American Airlines. Magnificent Southwestern Airlines. Daring Delta. Next thing you know the phone companies will want in the act like Sensational SBC, Awesome AT&T, and Spectacular Sprint.

So it was a Great Northern Railroad. Better than OK. More than good. It was Great. But not too Great. Not Great enough to be Outstanding. I could go on forever but then I'd run out of adjectives. At least the good ones. All that would be left is Mediocre Milwaukee Road and Mundane Kansas City Southern and we can't have that now.

[ajmiller]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ironhorseman
Just how big headed do you have to be to label your railroad as in "Great?" What was so "great" about the Great Northern. Why couldn't have been the Wonderful Northern or the Fabulous Northern? Was it not good enough to be the Spectacular Northern? If Mr. James J. Hill had tried harder maybe he could have had a Stupendous Northern or even an Outstanding Northern. I mean, if it was just going to be 'great' from the get-go what was stopping him from making it a Terrific Northern?

Maybe they ment "Great" in the sense of largeness or importance in the area. There were other entites with the word "Great" in their name. For example, "Great Eastern" was a railroad in England, and also the name of a very large steamship. Also, there was a Great Northern Railway in England as well. Perhaps Hill was just borrowing the name from somthing people were familiar with. It was an era for thinking big and the name fit with the times. Think of Barnum & Bailey's "Greatest Show on Earth" or the Great Lakes or the Great Depression. Heck, there's even a whole country (well technically just the island) named Great Britain.

[wallyworld]

UP=Untimate Power
BNSF= Best National Super Fantastic
NS= Naturally Superior
CSX= Compentant Superiority Multiplied.
This brings to mind another potential thread-acronyms with a negative connotation-O&W=Old and Wobbly.

[Anonymous]

Mac - Fact: Of the Hill Lines, it was only GN that got the fancy realignments and the fancy long tunnels to make it's profile the best of the PNW lines. NP needed a new tunnel under Stampede (and BNSF still needs such), didn't get it. NP explored a two tunnel shortcut between St. Regis and Spokane via Lookout and Fourth of July passes. Didn't get it. CB&Q lines though Wyoming were little more than poor cousins to C&NW's Cowboy Line. And NP and GN had a preference for the MIlwaukee over CB&Q for the Chicago connection, leaving CB&Q shorthanded.

So what's so hard to comprehend about Hill treating NP and CB&Q poorly?

randyaj - Actually, GN is one of my all time favorites. If you had read any of my posts about the GN, you could have discerned that. That being said, why should I smother the forum with undue GN adulation, when the facts are that the original GN alignments were very poorly located, and it took decades and a massive amount of ca***o make the GN "the best profile of the PNW railroads" (after Hill's death)? If you think about it, Hill built the GN in stages, taking his time about it so as to not bleed the railroad short of cash. Good strategy. But, if he had that much time to plan ahead, why did he choose so poorly aka Haskells Pass, Stevens Pass, et al? Every GN fan seems to think that finding Marias Pass automatically made the GN the premier PNW railroad, yet even Marias Pass needed a helper district on the westside.

[nanaimo73]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

CB&Q lines though Wyoming were little more than poor cousins to C&NW's Cowboy Line. And NP and GN had a preference for the MIlwaukee over CB&Q for the Chicago connection, leaving CB&Q shorthanded.

So what's so hard to comprehend about Hill treating NP and CB&Q poorly?

James J Hill did not treat the Burlington poorly. He expanded it to the Twin Cities and Texas.
I doubt the C&NW line to Lander was in better shape than the CB&Q's Wyoming lines.
The CB&Q was a Granger, probably the best Granger, and had a mainline between Chicago and Denver. The Billings and Twin Cities lines (although double track) were appendages, and not the core, of the Burlington.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Mac - Fact: Of the Hill Lines, it was only GN that got the fancy realignments and the fancy long tunnels to make it's profile the best of the PNW lines. NP needed a new tunnel under Stampede (and BNSF still needs such), didn't get it. NP explored a two tunnel shortcut between St. Regis and Spokane via Lookout and Fourth of July passes. Didn't get it. CB&Q lines though Wyoming were little more than poor cousins to C&NW's Cowboy Line. And NP and GN had a preference for the MIlwaukee over CB&Q for the Chicago connection, leaving CB&Q shorthanded.

So what's so hard to comprehend about Hill treating NP and CB&Q poorly?

Dave: You make it sound like a great big conspiracy.[}:)] How in the world did Hill *siphon off* all this money from the hardworking NP and CBQ, to lavish it on to GN without anyone else catching on?[:0]

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73
James J Hill did not treat the Burlington poorly. He expanded it to the Twin Cities and Texas.

The hagiography of Hill is so overpowering, he gets credit for events that happened prior to his acquisition of the company. Now that's the power of public relations!

[nanaimo73]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73
James J Hill did not treat the Burlington poorly. He expanded it to the Twin Cities and Texas.

The hagiography of Hill is so overpowering, he gets credit for events that happened prior to his acquisition of the company. Now that's the power of public relations!

Ha !
I knew you'd show up to save Dave.
JJ Hill aquired the CB&Q in 1901 and the C&S was added in 1908.

[espeefoamer]

QUOTE: Originally posted by wallyworld

UP=Untimate Power
BNSF= Best National Super Fantastic
NS= Naturally Superior
CSX= Compentant Superiority Multiplied.
This brings to mind another potential thread-acronyms with a negative connotation-O&W=Old and Wobbly.

SP=Supreme Pacific.[:D]
or Superb Pacific.[:)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

CB&Q lines though Wyoming were little more than poor cousins to C&NW's Cowboy Line. And NP and GN had a preference for the MIlwaukee over CB&Q for the Chicago connection, leaving CB&Q shorthanded.

So what's so hard to comprehend about Hill treating NP and CB&Q poorly?

James J Hill did not treat the Burlington poorly. He expanded it to the Twin Cities and Texas.
I doubt the C&NW line to Lander was in better shape than the CB&Q's Wyoming lines.
The CB&Q was a Granger, probably the best Granger, and had a mainline between Chicago and Denver. The Billings and Twin Cities lines (although double track) were appendages, and not the core, of the Burlington.

So, the CB&Q had the dichotomy of a mainline that was no better than a bridge line for non-Hill lines, or "appendages" in Wyoming that could feed the other Hill lines but were not of mainline quality. Yep, that JJ Hill was one brilliant railroader! Wouldn't you think that if Hill had any regard for the CB&Q, he'd of used it soley for the NP and GN connections to Chicago, not the MIlwaukee or the CN&W?

Consider this: If the 7 mile Cascade Tunnel were transposed somehow down to the NP over Stampede, the NP would have then had the best profile of all the Cascade crossings, better than even the Milwaukee's Snoqualmie Pass line. Since Hill had no bonds tied to land grants related to the GN, he could have easily ditched the GN line through the State of Washington in deference to an upgraded NP line, with GN having trackage rights. Now, if you're the owner of both lines, and you really don't care which one gets used the most, only that both pull their own weight, why wouldn't a real railroader have done exactly what I suggest here? Are you going to come on this forum and claim that Hill didn't have a bias in favor of the GN?

[Murphy Siding]

Wow, Dave. You would have thought JJ Hill would have at least put a tunnel under the grassy knoll in Dallas.[;)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Wow, Dave. You would have thought JJ Hill would have at least put a tunnel under the grassy knoll in Dallas.[;)]

(insert blank stare and uncomfortable silence here)

What........ exactly are you smoking over there in Upper Tornado Alley?[:o)]

[MP173]

He is smoking Montana wheat stems.

ed

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73
James J Hill did not treat the Burlington poorly. He expanded it to the Twin Cities and Texas.

The hagiography of Hill is so overpowering, he gets credit for events that happened prior to his acquisition of the company. Now that's the power of public relations!

Ha !
I knew you'd show up to save Dave.
JJ Hill aquired the CB&Q in 1901 and the C&S was added in 1908.

Careful, CBQ had a substantial interest in the Chicago, Burlington & Northern, which the CBQ organized in 1883 and which connected the Q to the Twin Cities in 1886.

Perkins was workng the C&S acquisition in 1900.

[MP173]

This stuff makes me wish I had been born in the PNW instead of the Midwest.

These railroad battle were much more interesting than laying a line across the state of Illinois.

ed

[PNWRMNM]

Dave

I have no doubt that NP considered many possible improvements. That they were not done does not prove a conspiricy or favoritism. The obvious explanation is that they did not have a sufficient return on investment to be worth while. Remember the Hepburn Act of 1906 began the capital starvation of the industry.

I am sure that the twin cities gateway remained open. That is not the same as a "preference" for the MILW vs CBQ. Shippers had the right to route their freight. In the regulated era rates were the same between competitive points. Shippers routed via one line or the other for both good and superficial reasons. A good reason for a shipper prefering the MILW to the Q for Chicago traffic would be that the industry was served by the MILW. Service would tend to be better if the traffic went to the MILW at Minnesota Transfer than if it went to the Q, then the BRC, then the MILW.

I am quite certain that after paying $200 per share Mr. Hill did had all open routed traffic between GN and NP and CBQ points routed via the CBQ. I strongly suggest that the traffic men of all three lines solicited prefferentially for the other Hill lines in prefference to others.

Mac

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Wow, Dave. You would have thought JJ Hill would have at least put a tunnel under the grassy knoll in Dallas.[;)]

(insert blank stare and uncomfortable silence here)

What........ exactly are you smoking over there in Upper Tornado Alley?[:o)]

Dave-my reference is to the post of yours just above mine, about moving tunnels. You sometimes make the GN/BN/JJ Hill/MWK relationships sound like one big conspiracy theory.
Now, *technically* anybody who could move a tunnel from GN to NP could certainly move it to Dallas, right? And CBQ did own a subsidary [:-,][(-D] line that went to Texas-right? Aha!

Ed-no Montana wheat stems here, BNSF charges way too much to haul them, so we have to import them from China (on BNSF, no doubt)[;)].

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

Dave
I am sure that the twin cities gateway remained open. That is not the same as a "preference" for the MILW vs CBQ. Shippers had the right to route their freight. In the regulated era rates were the same between competitive points. Shippers routed via one line or the other for both good and superficial reasons. A good reason for a shipper prefering the MILW to the Q for Chicago traffic would be that the industry was served by the MILW. Service would tend to be better if the traffic went to the MILW at Minnesota Transfer than if it went to the Q, then the BRC, then the MILW.

I am quite certain that after paying $200 per share Mr. Hill did had all open routed traffic between GN and NP and CBQ points routed via the CBQ. I strongly suggest that the traffic men of all three lines solicited prefferentially for the other Hill lines in prefference to others.

Former NP and GN people I have talked to recall that they competed fiercely with each other for traffic, even to the extent of shorthauling each other at Minnesota Terminals in the same fashion that they both shorthauled Milwaukee Road.

I have a letter wherein Hill is complaining that, after the acquisition of the Q, Milwaukee had been increasing its share of traffic interchanged at Minnesota Terminals, at the expense of the Q. ICC testimony and exhibits during the Northern Lines merger hearings suggested that GN traffic interchanged at MT favored Milwaukee to some degree where alternate routings were available. Why, I have no idea.

I was surprised to learn a few years ago that GN and Milwaukee shared many of the same operating practices and operating procedures, whereas NP did things differently.

[nanaimo73]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

However, if indeed one were to bestow the label of "great railroad man" on Hill, the way he left the NP and CB&Q in shambles would speak otherwise.

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

Futuremodal,
The last two paragraphs of your previous posts are pure bunk. What does the next to last para mean? What is your source for "left the NP and CBQ in shambles"?

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

CB&Q lines though Wyoming were little more than poor cousins to C&NW's Cowboy Line. And NP and GN had a preference for the MIlwaukee over CB&Q for the Chicago connection, leaving CB&Q shorthanded.

So what's so hard to comprehend about Hill treating NP and CB&Q poorly?

James J Hill did not treat the Burlington poorly. He expanded it to the Twin Cities and Texas.
I doubt the C&NW line to Lander was in better shape than the CB&Q's Wyoming lines.
The CB&Q was a Granger, probably the best Granger, and had a mainline between Chicago and Denver. The Billings and Twin Cities lines (although double track) were appendages, and not the core, of the Burlington.

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

So, the CB&Q had the dichotomy of a mainline that was no better than a bridge line for non-Hill lines, or "appendages" in Wyoming that could feed the other Hill lines but were not of mainline quality. Yep, that JJ Hill was one brilliant railroader! Wouldn't you think that if Hill had any regard for the CB&Q, he'd of used it soley for the NP and GN connections to Chicago, not the MIlwaukee or the CN&W?

Dave-
You (and Michael) are very knowledgeable on the histories of the GN, NP and SP&S. When it comes to the CB&Q, you don't seem to have a lot of knowledge

James J Hill aquired control of the CB&Q during 1901. He kept that control until he passed in 1916. You say he left it in shambles. Well then why did the CB&Q remain afloat, and continue to pay dividends, through the depression ? Name another Granger that did that.
Mr Hill acquired the C&S in 1908, thus extending the CB&Q to Galveston. He then added a line from Billings (using the NP to Fromberg) to the C&S at Orin through Casper. If he treated the CB&Q "poorly", he would have left the C&S, and the line through Casper, outside of the CB&Q.

What do you mean by this-

QUOTE: CB&Q lines though Wyoming were little more than poor cousins to C&NW's Cowboy Line.

Can you tell me why you think the CB&Q was better in 1901 than it was in 1916 ?

[MichaelSol]

The idea that Hill controlled the NP is probably a misnomer. Hill's wealth was tied up in GN stock. He would have had to sell GN stock to buy NP. J.P. Morgan had bought the NP, including the shares necessary to retain control during the fabuluous run-up of the Northern Securities matter. I have long suspected that whole affair was nothing more than a typical H.H. Rogers/William Rockefeller stock raid, by which they profited enough to turn around and build the PCE -- with Morgan's money.

However, Morgan and his allies owned the NP. There were some signs that the relationship between Hill and Morgan was rocky after the CBQ acquisition. Hill resigned or was forced off the NP Board, and the NP president at the time and for several years thereafter was C.S. Mellen, who detested Hill and vice-versa.

The joint ownership of the Q created a strong common interest at the ownership level, but otherwise, there is not really that much evidence suggesting the Hill owned or controlled the Northern Pacific Railroad. Those first few years after the Q acquisition suggests the opposite. That has certainly been a controlling conventional wisdom, but I have never seen much evidence for it. I think the Q ownership -- a dog controlled by two tails essentiallly -- dictated future strategy regardless of ownership interests.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

The idea that Hill controlled the NP is probably a misnomer. Hill's wealth was tied up in GN stock. He would have had to sell GN stock to buy NP. J.P. Morgan had bought the NP, including the shares necessary to retain control during the fabuluous run-up of the Northern Securities matter. I have long suspected that whole affair was nothing more than a typical H.H. Rogers/William Rockefeller stock raid, by which they profited enough to turn around and build the PCE -- with Morgan's money.

However, Morgan and his allies owned the NP. There were some signs that the relationship between Hill and Morgan was rocky after the CBQ acquisition. Hill resigned or was forced off the NP Board, and the NP president at the time and for several years thereafter was C.S. Mellen, who detested Hill and vice-versa.

The joint ownership of the Q created a strong common interest at the ownership level, but otherwise, there is not really that much evidence suggesting the Hill owned or controlled the Northern Pacific Railroad. Those first few years after the Q acquisition suggests the opposite. That has certainly been a controlling conventional wisdom, but I have never seen much evidence for it. I think the Q ownership -- a dog controlled by two tails essentiallly -- dictated future strategy regardless of ownership interests.

Interesting, that you feel that Hill did not have much influence in NP, while futuremodal thinks he was raiding the NP cookie jar, and spending it all on GN.[;)]

[MichaelSol]

Well, as you know, we all think alike, all the time.

[PNWRMNM]

Murphy,

Michael has the story right, FM does not. The key is who owned stock in what when Northern Securities was disolved and then afterwords. Hill and Morgan worked together on the reogranization of the NP in the 1890's. Hill and Morgan combined had a bare majority of NP common between them at the conclusion of Harriman's attempt to get control of the NP. IIRC that was 1901.

Northern Securities was a holding company for both GN and NP stock. GN and NP each held the same number of shares in the Q, something in excees of 90% at the time. Harriman got two seats on the Northern Securities board, not much for his pains. When the government forced the disolution of Northern Securities there was a fight over who got what shares in which company. Hill wanted a prorata distribution, that is each shareholder would get the same proportion of GN and NP stock. Harriman still, wanting control of the NP wanted distribution that reflected what each shareholder had put in, since he put in all NP. The US Supreme Court sided with Hill.

At that point then every stockholder in Northern Securites had the same ratio of GN and NP stock. After that each was free to buy and sell on the market. My suspicion is that Hill and his associates, especially the Canadian ones, sold NP but I do not know that. The fifth associate, Kennedy, had far more NP in his portfolio than GN at the time of his death.

Through all of this the Q stock sat in the vaults of the GN and NP where it was at the time of the BN merger.

Mac

[gngoatman88]

Talk about stirring up a hornet's nest after this topic had sat for months! But regardless of futuremodal's claim to be a fan of the GN, his constant railings (or derailings) against the GN make this rather difficult to believe. I sit in amusement of his delusional thoughts on the subject. Get a grip, man!

But whatever can be said of any of the railroads, the GN, NP, CB&Q, SP&S, C&NW, CStP&P, and many others are all gone now and we are left with the two megaroads of BNSF & UP, both of which have sucked up all the others, and both the legacies of great railroad men, James J. Hill and Edward H. Harriman, no matter who's "side" you're on.

GN = Great Name (for a railroad)
CStP&P = Creaky, Strapped Poor & Pitiful
C&NW = Crummy & Not Worthy
NP = Nearly Profitable
CB&Q = Cash Bucket & Quality
UP = Unfriendly Personality
SP&S = Supremely Planned & Satisfying

[Anonymous]

My fellow gentlemen. I have glanced at some of the messages posted on this BB and some are reasoned and intelligent, and others are not. Let me set a few things right.

My railroad to the Pacific was a great adventure, certainly my greatest. Also, it was the most northerly of the transcontinentals in the United States. The name "Northern Pacific" was already used. And I wanted to build a railroad greater than that, so the obvious name that came to mind was the Great Northern Railway. Yes, that name was already used by railways in Great Britain, Ireland, and Australia, but nonetheless, it was a good name with a good sound to it and it had not been used in the Americas as yet. Of course, the underlying charter I used was of the St Paul, Minneapolis, and Mannitoba Railway. But that name had too much of a parochial quality to it. My new railroad to the PNW had to have a more universal ring to it than that. The Great Northern sounded good, and so it was.

My interest in the NP was mostly to rid myself of a nuisance competitor. The GN and the NP had many parallel and crossing lines with each other in attempts to rob each other's markets or cut one the other off from reaching our own markets. This was especially true in Minnesota and Washington where the bulk of the populous was. From my early days in railroading with the St Paul & Pacific and up until my involvement in the takeover of the NP in 1896, the NP had fought to block me out or beat me to many a territory. Better to have it as an ally than have that dratted Edward Harriman use it to cut my throat. Yes, John Morgan bought up most of the NP stock but I bought a lot of shares myself. Unfortunately, I didn't have enough power to control the NP myself and John gave control of the NP to that darned Charles Mellen. But old Melon-head finally moved on to the New Haven and I had more say in the NP after that. But my interest was always the Great Northern anyway. I put my back into it, my sweat into it, my money into it, and all I had because it was MINE from the first day of its creation. A lot of people said it was "Hill's folly" to build a new line to the Pacific without federal land grants. But I had a plan and I put a lot of effort into building traffic for the line everywhere it went. It paid for itself through operating revenue, not by the sale of land grant property. I didn't have time to try to run two railroads. We tried to form a trust company in 1901 with the purchase of the CB&Q, but that dratted Theodore Roosevelt threw a monkey wrench into the works.

Regarding Steven's Pass as my route across the Cascades: I wanted my OWN pass without the threat of prior claims being asserted and tying me up in court for years on end. My business plan depended on having a through connection to Puget Sound as quickly as possible. Snoqualmie Pass had been identified as the route for a number of Seattle founders' attempts to have railroad connections to the rest of the country. The NP had tried to strangle Seattle and squeeze it off the map in favor of their terminus in Tacoma. The Seattle fathers didn't take well to that and made several attempts to build their own railroad across the mountains. The NP had taken control of some of these early railroads and would have tied my attempt to gain a right-of-way in knots for as long as they could to starve me of traffic. I couldn't afford this, so a more northerly pass was sought out. Steven's Pass was the resulting choice to steer clear of any prior claims.

So there you have it. I'm an old, old man and getting tired, so I am going to sign off now.

Sincerely,

James Jerome Hill

[nanaimo73]

The real James J Hill, or any other Canadian, would know there is only one n in Manitoba.[(-D]

[daveklepper]

An old man can be forgiven for a spelling mistake, and anyway, possibly the keyboard letter just got stuck!