The Great Northern Railroad

[edblysard]

Actually Dave,
We live in the New South, and are darn proud of it...we get things done here, instead of sitting around whining on the internet about how un fair the world is, because the big bad railroad wont help us out.
We take charge of things and change what needs to be changed, and help those who truly need it...as opposed to those just too stupid to get off their butts and work for a living.

I didn’t notice the fine folks of Montana sending any help to New Orleans, nor do I hear about Montana wheat farmers offering any help...Funny, two ambulance companies in California can send some of their vehicles and drivers, but I don’t see squat coming from you guys...other than complaints and comments to feed your self pity...your a sorry lot up there, and the Union would be a lot better off if you all moved to Canada.

Besides, you puntas aint got the guts to secede, you’re too dependent on the Federal teat to survive on your own and too frightened to try!


Ed

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

How did James J. Hill compare to his contemporary, E.H. Harriman?

Take a look at Maury Klein's biography of E. H. Harriman. After reading the book it is my impression EHH had a hard time cutting deals with his fellow railroad owners.

Why is that?

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Ed,

You're the one who lives in the old Confederacy.

After living in OR, NJ, CO, TN, MS, IL, CA, TX, NE and VA I recall Oregon had some of the worse bigots of the lot.

[Anonymous]

Ed,

You're the one who lives in the old Confederacy.

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

How did James J. Hill compare to his contemporary, E.H. Harriman?

Take a look at Maury Klein's biography of E. H. Harriman. After reading the book it is my impression EHH had a hard time cutting deals with his fellow railroad owners. Therefore, when TR was on the prowl for a trust to bust he knew no one on Wall Street would come to EHH's defense. EHH was operating outside J P Morgan's interests.

[Murphy Siding]

How did James J. Hill compare to his contemporary, E.H. Harriman?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH
That may be true as related to the corporate structures but the onetime GN mainline looks like a pretty lively corpse to me. A smilar statement could be made regarding the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy compared to the Rock Island.

One should remember that trains are still operating over the former GN mainline despite all its shortcomings while the supposedly superior Pacific Coast Extension of the Milwaukee Road is mostly abandoned.

Of course, on its own, the use of that mainline was declining, maintenance was being deferred all during the 1960s, and the company as a whole was being supported by non-transcontinental iron ore traffic on the east end. Those were indeed significant shortcomings for which allegations of superior grades offered no solution.

Corporate structures were important. It was the NP traffic brought over to that line that justified the further investment in the line. NP fought tooth and nail for that traffic, and would not have just gladly handed it over without a merger of the companies compelling that result.

And that was no rational decision made in the cool light of contemplation. Upon merger day, the BN was confronted with a deteriorated track structure on the Burlington, described by one engineer on the BN review team as "awful, just awful." The impact of the 100 ton car was just beginning to be felt on Western railroads, and both NP and GN had deferred maintenance on their mainlines for nearly a decade. It was an era of hard choices, compounded by signficant traffic losses to the Milwaukee Road which launched a very successful invasion of BN's traffic through the Gateway conditions.

It was also a corporate structure, a different one, that refused to acknowledge the traffic carried on MILW western lines, the substantial profit being made there and that resulted in that line being lost -- nothing to do whatsoever with any inherent strengths or weaknesses of the line itself.

Even more oddly, important parts of the NP line, the worst railroad line of the bunch, remain in service -- grades, curves and all -- and the company involved is more profitable than the company that operates that other line despite its demonstrably inferior grades.

All very puzzling under the theory that grades are the paramount consideration.

The alleged superiority of the GN line notwithstanding, it offered nothing but a declining OR for the GN in its final ten years of life and a declining investment in return as GN reduced its committment to its system mainline, year after year during that final decade of life. That is the importance of the corporate entity and the importance of context to any discussion involving purely mechanical details of complex business organizations. Because it is the organization that is important, not the grade, not the curve, not the route distance. That is the reality supported by actual numbers.

All very understandable under the idea that grade is one many cost drivers, and of course that theory has nothing, nothing whatsoever, to do with revenue and revenue generating strategies that ultimately pay the costs of operation. and which are always more important.

That is the mystery of the GN under the "grade" theory. If the line was so good, why was GN in such a state of decline during its last ten years, and why were other railroads surpassing it in key indicators such as carloadings and operating ratio?

There are two plausible answers. The line was more expensive to operate than a mere grade analysis would suggest, or the entity operating the line couldn't generate the revenue. Maybe the line wasn't so hot, maybe fate played a role in its location and ability to market to shippers. We do know, however, that the fate of the line under a different management necessarily changed its outlook considerably.

Was that pre-ordained? No, the system was in a clear decline.

Was its salvation then a fortuitous stroke of good luck at a key time brought about by a change of heart by the regulatory authorities when the Milwaukee Road consented to the merger? Well, that's exactly what happened. The ICC had turned the merger down in 1966.

Neither of which probably thought about "grades" for a nano-second during their contemplations on the BN merger.

Whoops, I forgot. The ICC did specifically address the issue:

The Milwaukee, "notwithstanding its superior grades and shorter route, is hamstrung and shorthauled, and is continually losing effectiveness as a competitor in this territory ... because of restrictive routings imposed by connecting lines." Commissioners Tuggle, Freas, Murphy, Walrath, and Goff, United States Government Interstate Commerce Commission Reports, 328 ICC 534. March 31, 1966.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

The Great Northern died in 1970. The Milwaukee Road survived until 1986.

That is a reality.

Best regards, Michael Sol

That may be true as related to the corporate structures but the onetime GN mainline looks like a pretty lively corpse to me. A smilar statement could be made regarding the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy compared to the Rock Island.

One should remember that trains are still operating over the former GN mainline despite all its shortcomings while the supposedly superior Pacific Coast Extension of the Milwaukee Road is mostly abandoned.

[Murphy Siding]

Did CBQ, FWD, and Rock Island joint venture all 3 have lines into Houston at one time, or was there some overlap of trackage?

[edblysard]

Murphy,
Kenno has part of it..I live less than a block from the goofy one...the FW&D...CBQ and the Rock Island joint venture.

BNSF and UP have a joint dispatching center in Spring, Texas, just north of Houston, and they share dispatching duties.

Part of this is because of the sheer volume of trains here, but they now employee a form of directional running, inbounds from both UP and BN come into the city from the north, and leave to the south, for the most part.

Part of the merger deal with SP was that UP had to allow the Santa Fe trackage rights, and the BNSF enjoys the same deal.

But the old FW&D is the BNSFs major line into and out of the city, mornings it is solid outbounds till around 10 am, then inbounds till 10 or 11pm, then cycles back to outbounds.

Ed

[kenneo]

Originally, the FWD. FWD and CS were wholy owned by the Q

[Murphy Siding]

Ed: How does the BNSF get into Houston? ATSF tracks, FW &D, or on that goofy line I never understood-Rock Island-Burlington(?) -or something like that?

[edblysard]

Dave,
Glad to see you can get at least one piece of history straight...
And just to give you a little clue, I am perfectly happy with the out come of the American Civil war...
Why would you think otherwise?
Or are you a closet racist along with being a flat earther?
Ed

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Ed still can't contemplate the difference between rewriting history and correcting faulty historical presentation. If the history being presented has flaws, it is incumbent upon us to get the facts straight. Otherwise, the whole subject of history loses its credibility.

BTW, Ed, the South lost the Civil War. Get used to it.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

Hill wasted a lot of money building a line from Spokane to Vancouver through southern British Columbia.

Why? Was that to try and lure business away from Canadian lines?

[nanaimo73]

Hill wasted a lot of money building a line from Spokane to Vancouver through southern British Columbia.

[Anonymous]

I thought the Great Northern was located where it was because James Hill was out to battle Canadian Pacific for every ton of freight as revenge for going for an all Canadian route, and not using his existing lines between Chicago and Winnipeg. Run as close to the Canadian border and blow the hills in between seemed to be the idea.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

It is well known that the Milwaukee was DPM's favorite railroad.

Hmm, not likely -- DPM's first love was the Louisville & Nashville, if I recall.

[Anonymous]

First, let's get it right: It was the Great Northern Railway, not Great Northern Railroad.

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.

Directional operation varied on the old BN First (NP) and Fifth (SP&S) subs depending on the latest assessments by management as to which was the most efficient route for loaded trains. At first westbounds used the First sub. Toward the end of the Fifth sub's life, most westbounds were handled on the old SP&S.

Annual flooding of the SP&S right of way near Cheney, Wash., during the spring runoff was as much a factor in the decision to a abandon the Fifth sub as anything -- that and BN's typical short-sighted management during the 1980s. The huge steel viaducts at Burr, Box, Cow Creek, Wilson, and Bouvey canyons, while in decent shape, were costly to maintain. Replacement was not a key factor.

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 did purchase that right of way, and then did nothing with it except tear up the ties and rails, then sell the right of way to the state.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by John Krug

I once heard from a GN mechanical man that the "billy goat" logo presented an unusual problem. Frustrated hunters would sometimes take pot shots at the moving train.

That must of been why GN changed the logo from a facing forward goat to the silhouetted goat.

[Anonymous]

Ed still can't contemplate the difference between rewriting history and correcting faulty historical presentation. If the history being presented has flaws, it is incumbent upon us to get the facts straight. Otherwise, the whole subject of history loses its credibility.

BTW, Ed, the South lost the Civil War. Get used to it.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by VerMontanan

[quoteAnd your obsession is that you still don't accept the reality that there might be very good reasons for the Great Northern to have triumphed.

Wow. Anyone who has any doubts about your disposition on this, needs to read this. "Triumphed"?

The Great Northern died in 1970. The Milwaukee Road survived until 1986.

That is a reality.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Dave: obsessed may be a little odd coming from you![:)]

With what? Open Access? Coal pipelines? Or do you recognize my distain for those who try to wrap rail history into a neat little black and white package?

Dang! I'm reading all these posts, and I realize HEY! everybody else seems to have an obsession, and I don't!!!! No fair!! I've got to get me one of those!![}:)]

[edblysard]

Actually,
The distain is reserved for those who attempt to re-write history to fit their own personal view of what should or could have been, instead of learning from the black and white of what was....

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Dave: obsessed may be a little odd coming from you![:)]

With what? Open Access? Coal pipelines? Or do you recognize my distain for those who try to wrap rail history into a neat little black and white package?

[Murphy Siding]

Dave: obsessed may be a little odd coming from you![:)]

[Anonymous]

It's an interesting psychological analysis, in that Mr. Sol has relayed the faults the have occured with the Milwaukee, but you admit no faults with the GN despite the overwelming evidence of such faults from a variety of credible sources. That makes Mr. Sol the realist, and you the obsessed neurotic.

[VerMontanan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Actually Mark, what usually happens is that when I talk to someone, practically anyone, who has more experience than you do that bears upon the question, they almost always have an opinion that differs substantially from yours. Perhaps because you carefully emphasize what you wish, and delete what supports your "argument."

Because it is not "argument," it is public relations pure and simple.

As I say, in nearly every single instance upon which you attempt to create a historical record, more experienced and knowledgeable people than yourself have a different opinion, and this has included the General Manager of Lines West, GN, a VP Burlington Northerm and now a senior engineer, Burlington Northern.

The fact that you cannot acknowledge a single weakness, ever, anywhere, in the GN system, quite clearly establishes the obsession. This is perhaps why some of your own colleagues have been taken aback when you tell them that you "consider any negative comment whatsoever on the Great Northern Railway to be a personal insult to the memory of my father."

With all due respect to your father, this is so clearly an emotional issue for you, you cannot acknowledge any reality, other than the one you have constructed from a series of misrepresentations that more experienced, educated, and knowledgeable people simply cannot, in good honesty, support.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Michael,

And your obsession is that you still don't accept the reality that there might be very good reasons for the Great Northern to have triumphed. And it seems that "reality" is very strange word for you to use, the very person who actually has denied that GN passenger trains such as the Empire Builder served Portland, Oregon.

People are always searching for those who agree with them. That you may have found some who agree with you seems inconsequential in the scope of the fact that you still can never show why these people and everyone else who cumulatively made the decisions ended up keeping most of the GN routes, demoting the NP routes to secondary, and not switching to the MILW when they had the chance to acquire. In the example you quoted of the gentleman who claimed that the Inside Gateway was "ridiculous" for instance, it's important to remember that there must have been others that did not share this sentiment, or it would be gone. Same for Cascade Tunnel.... an operating headache to be sure, but one that endures because someone, probably more than just some one person, thought it was worth keeping. The same can be claimed for the MILW PCE....for all the endless pontificating you do about its inherent superiority, the reality is that there were people in some position that mattered who had a different perspective or it would still be around, That you claim I do not acknowledge any weaknesses in the GN is certainly the pot calling the kettle black. In this case, however, I would only point out the kettle is for the most part busier than ever today, while the pot is either minimally used or gone altogether.

In the cases of the GN transcontinental route and Inside Gateway, as time progresses they only have increased in importance and use. Comparing them with yet another year passing that the MILW PCE lies most abandoned while you continue to tout its unending superiority, the reality gap does appear to be widening as is the explanation of why it occurred in the first place.

That I "consider any negative comment whatsoever on the Great Northern Railway to be a personal insult to the memory of my father" is not only something I deny saying, it's a cheap shot, characteristically out of context, and completely irrelevant to the situation. I'm genuinely sorry that you're so obviously hurt by the demise of the Milwaukee, that you attempt to change the way history is reported. I'm sorry to report, however, that it will likely not change the way things are. THAT is reality.

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

General Manager of Lines West, GN, a VP Burlington Northerm and now a senior engineer, Burlington Northern...

These people have interesting viewpoints. Who are they?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: VerMontananThe interesting part of Mr. Sol's post are that while the superior or the MILW and the inferiority of GN is commonly suggested, the stark reality of that, for whatever reason the GN survives as the major route is never explained. In my opinion, either the GN indeed was the route worth keeping, or the conspiracy machine behind propping it up would dwarf that of the JFK assassination in comparison.

Assassination is certainly an interesting analogy for you to make. Your utterly simplistic view of history is that "Hamilton died. Therefore Hamilton deserved to die. Burr lived. Therefore Burr deserved to live."

History is a pretty neat and tidy series of easy answers to complex questions with that approach. No effort involved.

No wonder you prefer that approach.

And just look at how much energy you put into slamming the Milwaukee, inaccurately as usual, when my post mentioned the Milwaukee Road but once and only in the context of traffic, not route.

Obsession?

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

Actually Mark, what usually happens is that when I talk to someone, practically anyone, who has more experience than you do that bears upon the question, they almost always have an opinion that differs substantially from yours. Perhaps because you carefully emphasize what you wish, and delete what does not support your "argument."

Because it is not "argument," it is public relations pure and simple.

As I say, in nearly every single instance upon which you attempt to create a historical record, more experienced and knowledgeable people than yourself have a different opinion, and this has included the General Manager of Lines West, GN, a VP Burlington Northerm and now a senior engineer, Burlington Northern.

The fact that you cannot acknowledge a single weakness, ever, anywhere, in the GN system, quite clearly establishes the obsession. This is perhaps why some of your own colleagues have been taken aback when you tell them that you "consider any negative comment whatsoever on the Great Northern Railway to be a personal insult to the memory of my father."

With all due respect to your father, this is so clearly an emotional issue for you, you cannot acknowledge any reality, other than the one you have constructed from a series of misrepresentations that more experienced, educated, and knowledgeable people simply cannot, in good honesty, support.

Best regards, Michael Sol