The Great Northern Railroad

[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

[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

[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.

[Murphy Siding]

Interesting....I've read some other posters on here who would say that NP's land grant assets were what propped up GN (&BN). The fact that BNSF's trancontinental line is mostly former GN leads me to believe GN had the better line.

[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. Hill built the GN to be an efficient carrier of freight and did it without federal land grants. He did have some state grants from the St Paul & Pacific (not the MILW) in the Red River Valley, but that was it, I believe. The NP route was determined by greedy investors that wanted to maximize the size of the land grants by wiggling the route all over the map rather than making it as short and efficient as possible. Regarding the route over Stampede Pass, the NP's original charter signed by Abe Lincoln required the RR to build from Lake Superior to Puget Sound. Portland isn't Puget Sound by a long shot. So when Villard fumbled away the OR&N and Harriman took it over, something had to be done to get to Puget Sound besides going via Portland. But at the time, Portland was THE big town and Seattle & Tacoma were barely on the map.

The CB&Q was purchased in a similar manner to the NP, again by Hill interests, but by then Hill had acquired control of the NP so they bought it jointly. The Q was a good money maker for the two parent companies and probably was a big part of keeping the NP from going bankrupt again over the years.

The SP&S was chartered to build down the north bank from Pasco to Portland to restore direct access to Portland for NP & to give access to Portland for the GN via Spokane rather than over Steven's Pass and down the NP main from Seattle to Vancouver. Hill insisted over the objections from the NP president, that the SP&S (which was originally just the Portland & Seattle Ry until the City of Spokane got huffy since the Ry was from Spokane to Portland and never even went to Seattle) also build from Pasco to Spokane, which was done after the Pasco to Portland route was completed. This was so the GN could have direct access all the way from Spokane to Portland without going over any NP trackage.

Regarding the BN merger of GN, NP, CB&Q, and SP&S; James Hill tried to do this about 100 years ago after he had gained control of all these railroads. He formed the Northern Securities Company as a holding company to own controlling stock shares of all these railroads. Because of public sympathy against railroads in general, since at the time they had a monopoly on transportation, Teddy Roosevelt took up the trust-busting cause to break up the Northern Securities Company via the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. It went to the Supreme Court but the Hill lines lost the case and were ordered to maintain their sovereignty. However, that didn't stop Hill and his buddies from personally owning controlling interests in GN & NP so that the Hill lines still operated with some coordination. The tried again to merge I believe in the 1920's and didn't get past the ICC review as I recall. Then tried again in the 1960's and finally succeeded after something like 10 years of ICC hearings and court battles launched by the UP and MILW, so that they finally became BN in 1970 after trying to get to that point for almost 70 years.

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.

[Anonymous]

Of all the Hill Lines which one could of suffered the fate of the MILW without Hill?

[PNWRMNM]

Murphy.

Yes, GN and NP each held 49%+ of CBQ stock as of the 1960's era. Annual reports or Moodys would give further details.

Mac

[Murphy Siding]

I read that the SP&S was was owned 50% by GN, and 50% by NP, so that neither could control the SP&S exclusively. This was to allow the SP&S to work with both of them equally ,as neither had a controlling interest. Was the joint ownership of CB&Q set up along the same lines?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

futuremodal: I've been reading up on the BN components,and ran accross something that puzzles me. NP had lines into Pasco, Washington and Portland,Oregon. Great Northern had a line into Portland as well. Why would NP,GN and the *Hill Influences* need to build the SP&S?. Wouldn't it have been easier to extend the NP from Pasco to Portland, without duplicating the line from Spokane to Pasco? It seems NP could have done this on their own, and left GN out?

Michael summed it up pretty well. It should also be noted that NP had it's original mainline into Portland via Henry Villard's OR&N. So NP's original route to the Puget Sound was via Portland. When the Villard financial house collapsed, NP decided that it better build it's own line to the coast, and commenced on the "Cascade Branch" up the Yakima Valley and over Stampede Pass to the Sound. I can't remember all the details, but I believe at this point the Harriman interests took control of the OR&N through the Columbia River gorge, and at that point the NP was out and UP in.

So why didn't the NP just build on the North Bank of the Columbia River instead of going over Stampede after the Villard collapse? I do not know. It could be that they already had plans for the Cascade branch and just decided to make that the new mainline to the coast.

So why didn't GN build on the North Bank instead of building over that horrible Stevens Pass route? I do not know. Perhaps John Stevens thought he could find an easy direct route to the Puget Sound.

It is easy to surmise that both the NP's "Cascade Branch" and GN's Steven's Pass lines were a tremendous waste of capital, given the the North Bank was just sitting there unused. Same can be said for their collective ignorance of Snoqualmie Pass, clearly the best crossing of the Cascades by far. If not the North Bank, then at least take Snoqualmie!

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding
[ Yes, I've read that too. But,why an all new railroad? Wouldn't just an extention of the NP have done the same thing for a lot less investment?

Then NP would have controlled the long hauls. For Hill, no way.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

futuremodal: I've been reading up on the BN components,and ran accross something that puzzles me. NP had lines into Pasco, Washington and Portland,Oregon. Great Northern had a line into Portland as well. Why would NP,GN and the *Hill Influences* need to build the SP&S?. Wouldn't it have been easier to extend the NP from Pasco to Portland, without duplicating the line from Spokane to Pasco? It seems NP could have done this on their own, and left GN out?

There are some historical accounts that maintain that the SP&S was designed to block the Milwaukee from entering Portland, and not for any gradient advantages. That is, like many railroad location decisions, it was political, not economic.

That does not imply it is not a good route, but this was 1906. Recognize then what Portland was and what Seattle was.

Milwaukee had organized a construction subsidiary, the "Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry Co of Oregon." It is the "lost" construction subsidiary of the Milwaukee's PCE.

It was lost when SP&S was built to block the project. Milwaukee had the idea that this was a good route for access to Portland, better than either GN's or NP's, and represented about the same investment for Milwaukee if Milwaukee built south from Tacoma to Portland. After the Snoqualmie survey was finalized, Hill realized that Milwaukee was quickly obtaining all the best routes to key ports, and on its own, GN couldn't afford a whole new line. So, NP was enlisted. Hill did it purely to block Milwaukee. He later wrote to a colleague that, having built the line, they didn't seem to be able to obtain the business to justify it, something to the effect of "What that line wants is traffic."

Best regards, Michael Sol

Yes, I've read that too. But,why an all new railroad? Wouldn't just an extention of the NP have done the same thing for a lot less investment?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

futuremodal: I've been reading up on the BN components,and ran accross something that puzzles me. NP had lines into Pasco, Washington and Portland,Oregon. Great Northern had a line into Portland as well. Why would NP,GN and the *Hill Influences* need to build the SP&S?. Wouldn't it have been easier to extend the NP from Pasco to Portland, without duplicating the line from Spokane to Pasco? It seems NP could have done this on their own, and left GN out?

There are some historical accounts that maintain that the SP&S was designed to block the Milwaukee from entering Portland, and not for any gradient advantages. That is, like many railroad location decisions, it was political, not economic.

That does not imply it is not a good route, but this was 1906. Recognize then what Portland was and what Seattle was.

Milwaukee had organized a construction subsidiary, the "Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry Co of Oregon." It is the "lost" construction subsidiary of the Milwaukee's PCE.

It was lost when SP&S was built to block the project. Milwaukee had the idea that this was a good route for access to Portland, better than either GN's or NP's, and represented about the same investment for Milwaukee if Milwaukee built south from Tacoma to Portland. After the Snoqualmie survey was finalized, Hill realized that Milwaukee was quickly obtaining all the best routes to key ports, and on its own, GN couldn't afford a whole new line. So, NP was enlisted. Hill did it purely to block Milwaukee. He later wrote to a colleague that, having built the line, they didn't seem to be able to obtain the business to justify it, something to the effect of "What that line wants is traffic."

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Murphy Siding]

futuremodal: I've been reading up on the BN components,and ran accross something that puzzles me. NP had lines into Pasco, Washington and Portland,Oregon. Great Northern had a line into Portland as well. Why would NP,GN and the *Hill Influences* need to build the SP&S?. Wouldn't it have been easier to extend the NP from Pasco to Portland, without duplicating the line from Spokane to Pasco? It seems NP could have done this on their own, and left GN out?

[Anonymous]

Murphy, I see you're still having some hiccups, but otherwise you are grasping the concept of segregated quotes.

Why Milwaukee and CNW? Because that is what should have been done back in the 1900's when the Milwaukee was embarking on thier PCE plans. Board member Rockefeller wanted the PCE to be a joint project with CNW. Think of it. Instead of Milwaukee footing the entire $45 - 250 million (which ever final figure you want to use) for the PCE, now they are only paying half. That in itself probably would have kept Milwaukee out of it's initial bankruptcy, which in turn would allow Milwaukee and CNW to make the necessary upgrades on the PCE to make it unquestionably the superior route to the PNW (leaving GN a far distant second).

That's what the tagline refers to. That would have been something to see!

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

futuremodal: I haven't yet figured out how to do multiple quotes in a reply, but several thoughts do come to mind-

It's easy. To inserf your own comments after a previously recorded comment, just type *bracket* *backslash* "quote" *bracket*, then share your thoughts, then type *bracket* "quote" *bracket* after your comments, and the post will return to the original poster's thoughts. Then repeat as needed.

QUOTE:

Don't UP and BNSF both sen their PRB coal trains south on a joint line?

BNSF trains go north and south, UP south. Both use their own rails outside the joint line. There is no run through freights from UP origin to BNSF interchange, and vis versa.

You sat MWK and GN having parallel lines would be bad,but NP and MWK having parallel lines would be good?

You have to understand, the NP had the ace up the sleeve with the land grants. Neither GN nor Milwaukee had any extensive land holdings through the Northern Tier with which to provide collateral. The irony is that NP's land grants were more valuable to a potential suitor than the line itself. JJ Hill realized this right from the start, that without an NP holding, there would be no way to finance all those expensive changes the GN needed to become the "superior" Northern Tier route. If Milwaukee and NP had become corporate partners in some fashion, it would be the Milwaukee that could then finance it's wish list of line improvements instead of the GN, and the GN would have gone the way of other fallen flags long before the BN merger. Having parallel lines was a minor consideration, you just focus on the better route combinations and bide your time until the feds would let you sell or scrap the lesser line(s).

[/"] (?) [/"] (?) #@$%$##$%$@&*# Could you please explain how to do multiple quotes. Brain not working-talk to me like I'm 4 years old.[xx(]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

futuremodal: I haven't yet figured out how to do multiple quotes in a reply, but several thoughts do come to mind-

It's easy. To inserf your own comments after a previously recorded comment, just type *bracket* *backslash* "quote" *bracket*, then share your thoughts, then type *bracket* "quote" *bracket* after your comments, and the post will return to the original poster's thoughts. Then repeat as needed.

QUOTE:

Don't UP and BNSF both sen their PRB coal trains south on a joint line?

BNSF trains go north and south, UP south. Both use their own rails outside the joint line. There is no run through freights from UP origin to BNSF interchange, and vis versa.

You sat MWK and GN having parallel lines would be bad,but NP and MWK having parallel lines would be good?

You have to understand, the NP had the ace up the sleeve with the land grants. Neither GN nor Milwaukee had any extensive land holdings through the Northern Tier with which to provide collateral. The irony is that NP's land grants were more valuable to a potential suitor than the line itself. JJ Hill realized this right from the start, that without an NP holding, there would be no way to finance all those expensive changes the GN needed to become the "superior" Northern Tier route. If Milwaukee and NP had become corporate partners in some fashion, it would be the Milwaukee that could then finance it's wish list of line improvements instead of the GN, and the GN would have gone the way of other fallen flags long before the BN merger. Having parallel lines was a minor consideration, you just focus on the better route combinations and bide your time until the feds would let you sell or scrap the lesser line(s).