The Great Northern Railroad

[Murphy Siding]

Why did GN and the Milwaukee invest in eletrification,if NP crossed the same mountains without needing it?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Why did GN and the Milwaukee invest in eletrification,if NP crossed the same mountains without needing it?

There is an NP history of looking at electrification. Please observe a copyright on the following:

As early as 1880, Thomas Edison himself dabbled with a model electric railroad in his back yard, viewing it as a prototype. The Northern Pacific's Henry Villard, enthusiastic about every new scheme, had loaned Edison $40,000 to develop his "delightfully amateurish" electric railroad prototype, and, viewing its success, wanted to electrify the Northern Pacific with a third-rail system, but that company's engineers would have nothing to do with the proposal. [T. Commerford Martin, "Edison's Pioneer Electric Railway Work," Scientific American, 105:21, November 18, 1911, p. 451. Also, Milwaukee Road Magazine, "Edison and the Railroads," 35:9, December, 1947, p.6.]

In 1906, the Northern Pacific seriously considered electrifying its line from Portland to Seattle, but that proposal had been shelved. [Missoula Herald, June 29, 1906]. In the following year, the Northern Pacific considered electrifying the Mullan Tunnel, near Helena, Montana, where train crews were getting regularly asphyxiated by steam engine exhaust, but it finally opted for inefficient, but less-expensive gas masks. [Missoula Herald, December 19, 1907].

After the Milwaukee electrification was operational, the presidents of the Great Northern, Louis Hill, and the Northern Pacific, Jules Hannaford, took a ride in a business car behind one of the Milwaukee's big electrics, and were supposed to have been very impressed with "the sight of electric engines hauling heavy freights up the steep mountain grades at a speed of fifteen miles an hour or better, where formerly three or four steam engines strained and puffed to move small trains at half the speed." [ Literary Digest, "The Electrification of the St. Paul Road," March 3, 1917, 54:597].

The Northern Pacific, struggling with heavy grades and congestion, had resolved in 1906 to double track its entire western lines, at an estimated cost of $73 million. Ultimately, the NP encountered the same problems as the Milwaukee with expensive labor and materials prevalent at the time, and full double tracking was never achieved.

However, it is notable that the Milwaukee achieved the same or better capacity than the NP’s double-tracked mileage through the mountain districts, and did so with electrification at approximately one-third the construction cost of the NP’s double-tracking estimate. The NP’s approach also served to simply increase the costs of an already expensive method of propulsion in the mountains – steam – whereas the Milwaukee’s electrification approach to the same problem more than doubled capacity while cutting operating costs substantially.

However, Northern Pacific’s J.M. Hannaford had apparently been so impressed with his ride on the Milwaukee’s new system that Northern Pacific conducted a study of electrifying its mainline from Billings, Montana to Butte, a distance of 472 miles. Northern Pacific Railway Co., Office of the Chief Engineer, “Blueprint for Proposed Electrification,” May 1, 1917. Cited in Frey, “History of Northern Pacific Locomotives” Master’s Thesis, University of Montana, 1970, p. 321.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[PNWRMNM]

Murphy,

Stampede Tunnel is just under 2 miles long. Cascade is 7.79 miles. NP could operate steam through the tunnel, with the help of a coal fired ventilation plant at the west end after about 1910. GN could not run steam through Cascade so they had to electrify it.

Also Cascade is 1.6% ascending eastbound for its entire length, so power must work hard for whole trip. Stampede has a hump, toward the East end if I remember correctly. I do not recall what the grade is in the tunnel. The hump was a problem as smoke and gas from previous trains tended to get stuck in the hump under natural ventilation. I suspect that is why they put in the ventilation plant.

Mac

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding
What is the I-15 corridor? Sounds more like an interstate hiway to me.

CP/CN Edmonton to Calgary
CP Calgary to Coutts (Sweetgrass MT)
BNSF Sweetgrass to Helena (embargoed between Great Falls and Helena)
MRL (nee - BN) Helena to Garrison
BNSF (nee Montana Western) Garrison to Silver Bow
UP Silver Bow to Pocatello, and on to Los Angeles

You might note that many rail corridors are designated (by government transportation officials and the pop media) using parallel Interstate Highway numerations. The BNSF and UP lines from the PNW to So Cal are known as the I-5 corridor, there may be others with such designations, but I can't think of them off hand (I think I read of an I-35 rail corridor in the Texas rail plan). Such designations are useful in describing NAFTA rail corridors, expecially when you have different rail entities that make up the corridor (otherwise you'd just use the rail company designation) while you also have a corresponding single Interstate designation to work with.

Unfortunately, there is no single rail entity between the border at Sweetgrass and Los Angeles, so UP sends their Alberta traffic via the rickety ex-Spokane International line via Eastport ID, then down the already congested I-5 rail corridor, while BNSF runs their Alberta traffic from Sweetgrass to Shelby, then west to Wishram WA and south down the ex-Oregon Trunk line (BNSF's I-5 rail corridor) to California. The I-15 rail corridor makes more sense from a comprehensive transportation perspective, but since UP owns the majority of the track in that corridor BNSF isn't going to send anything that way, thus we get a perpetual inefficient fuel wasting, capital wasting "keep 'em on the home rails" attitude, a national embarrassment for the U.S.

Yet another reason to rationalize the U.S. rail system to make it more efficient and eliminate the economic fratricide. How to do this? Any number of ways. You could have BNSF and UP merge, have some or all of the U.S. rail infrastructure nationalized, have some or all of the U.S. rail system broken up into separate infrastructure and tranporter entities, or you could have the U.S. rail network re-regulated in some fashion to force the disparate entities to play ball with each other.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Yet another reason to rationalize the U.S. rail system to make it more efficient and eliminate the economic fratricide. How to do this? Any number of ways. You could have BNSF and UP merge, have some or all of the U.S. rail infrastructure nationalized, have some or all of the U.S. rail system broken up into separate infrastructure and tranporter entities, or you could have the U.S. rail network re-regulated in some fashion to force the disparate entities to play ball with each other.

You're starting to sound a little har***here Mr. Mussolini. (<<<<<<<obviously a light,joking reference there<<<<<[:-,]) I bet if big coal deposits were found there, they'd find a way to do a joint line.

I like your new and improved tagline. Milwaukee/GN vs. CBQ/NP might have been the way to go.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding
Milwaukee/GN vs. CBQ/NP might have been the way to go.

Although public policy prior to World War I had been to repress mergers, the Transportation Act of 1920 proposed to give the Interstate Commerce Commission a mandate to promote consolidation of the nation's railroads, while ensuring that "competition shall be preserved as fully as possible," although the resulting consolidated carriers were to be specifically exempted from operation of the anti-trust laws.

A final plan for consolidation was to be prepared by the ICC and presented to Congress by 1929. In 1921, the ICC began preparing proposals. An ICC consultant, William Ripley of Harvard University, grouped all railroads into 21 systems, and placed the Burlington with the Northern Pacific and the Great Northern with the Milwaukee.

When the ICC issued its preliminary plan, dated August 3, 1921, it accepted Ripley's proposal but added two iron-ore hauling roads, three other minor lines, and offered that the Spokane, Portland & Seattle might appropriately be added to either the NP-C.B.&Q system or the GN-Milwaukee system.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Murphy Siding]

When did GN get rid of electrification? And, based on some other current threads, why?

Thanks

[nanaimo73]

"Current threads".[:)]
Is that nuclear watch battery thread still around ?

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

"Current threads".[:)]
Is that nuclear watch battery thread still around ?

Huh? "Current threads" as in Main line electrification, and the([never-ending story [;)])Milwuakee Road thread talk about electification. Makes me wonder why it went away from GN?

[nanaimo73]

Current threads as in today, and as in electical current. You reminded me of that thread last June about BNSF filling their diesels with nuclear batteries to increase capacity through Cascade tunnel.

[Murphy Siding]

nanaimo73: Why doesn't your name show up as one of the members browsing this forum, as shown at the bottom of the page? What exactly are you hiding? Ve have vays of making you talk=you know![}:)][;)]

[PNWRMNM]

Murphy.

GN diesielized in the summer of 1956, June or July I believe.

As to why, I am sure it was to save money. The electrification required three locomotive fleets, one East of Wenatchee, the electrics, and another fleet West of Skykomish. Time was spent putting electrics on and taking them off 60 miles later. This probably delayed the average freight train an hour total. Locomotive utilization was poor due to power waiting for trains at both Wenatchee and Sky. Rember you would have had both diesels and electrics waiting most of the time.

The electric fleet had to be sized for maximum traffic levels which implies poor utilization. Electrics may have been cheap to operate, but they have a huge overhead cost in the investment in wires to run them, plus you have to maintain the wire, and ongoing expense.

GN's system was 30 years old by the mid 1950's and was coming due for new locomotives. I suspect the wooden poles were nearing the end of their life which implies two major investments to keep the system. To eliminate the electrics required an investment in ventilation equipment plus a set or two of GP 9's (10-20 units) at worst. They may not have had to add any diesels to the fleet given the improved utilization of run through power.

Remember a diesel is just an electric without wires. It has most of the advantages of an electric without the disadvantage of the cost to own and maintain the wire. The cost of the wire is a big number. Railroads are a high fixed cost system. Electic railroads are an even higher fixed cost system. The high fixed cost, and relatively low traffic density of US railroads, is why electrification never was a popular technology in the US.

Taking the wires down made sense then and makes sense today.

The MILW electrification was a pioneer, and it suffered the common fate of pioneers, arrows in the back. There is also evidence that the MILW system was installed in part because of the presence of members of Anadonda Copper on the MILW Board of Directors. MILW also had a very favorable power purchase contract. The MILW system was almost a copy of the Anaconda system with was 2400 volt DC. The MILW was 3,000 volt DC. The MILW and the Virginian electrifications were the only two main line systems in the US until the PRR expanded their commuter systems in the 1930's.

With the coming of the diesel, all but the PRR have been swept away.

Mac

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

Taking the wires down made sense then and makes sense today.

It made sense back then when Stevens Pass was only hosting (or hoped to host) 10 to 20 trains per day through Cascade Tunnel. The time taken to ventilate the tunnel was not an issue then. It is now. The time it takes to ventilate the tunnel is costing BNSF in terms of limiting capacity to 25 or so per day max. You also have the problem of midtrain helpers choking to death, which also limits capacity in terms of train length and the placement of helpers within a long consist.

Hindsight being 20/20, being "wireless" makes no sense today for this particular piece of rail line. Some form of electrification would solve the capacity issue through the Cascade Tunnel and the Stevens Pass line, whether it be new catenary, a third rail through the tunnel and corresponding FL9 emulation, or nanaimo's dreaded nuclear battery powered locos[:D]. (A wholesale fleet of Green Goat road engines might suffice.)

Therein lies the conundrum of Stevens Pass. It should be electrified to some degree, or abandoned altogether, if BNSF's motive is to maximize ton/miles.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

I bet if big coal deposits were found there, they'd find a way to do a joint line.

Nope. They'd do it just like they do in the PRB: UP's stuff goes south and out, BNSF's stuff goes north and out. There is no run through cooperation on the Orin line.

QUOTE:

I like your new and improved tagline. Milwaukee/GN vs. CBQ/NP might have been the way to go.

Milwaukee and GN? Why would the Milwaukee want to have been saddled with the GN's array of inferiorities? Milwaukee had the best Cascade crossing, GN the worst via the Old Cascade Tunnel, still in use in 1920. Milwaukee avoided a mainline entry into Spokane, GN's mainline through Spokane was the worst, far worse than NP's or UP/SI's. Marias Pass and the High line were frankly too far north for a Chicago-PNW corridor when the Milwaukee prefered a straight shot, might as well just merge with CP and use 4500' Crownest Pass or merge with CN and use the 3700' Yellowhead Pass if having "the lowest elevation crossing of the Rockies" is paramount.

If Milwaukee had to choose between GN or NP, they'd been better off merging with NP. Since the Milwaukee and NP paralleled each other in much of Montana, they could have utilized parts of the NP as a second track if need be, and the new Milwaukee Northern would be able to raise rates where before NP and Milwaukee had to compete. Milwaukee Northern could have used the Mullan Pass line between Lombard and Garrison to reduce the transcon by 40 or so miles, and used the ex-NP between St. Regis and Spokane as a water level alternative to St. Paul Pass. They also could have used NP's Yakima River route as a water level alternative to Milwaukee's Saddle Mountain crossing. And of course getting NP's I-5 corridor (although back then it was barely a U.S. 99 corridor) and NP's share of SP&S would have been frosting on the cake. And most importantly of all, there was significant borrowing power backed up by NP's land grants. Otherwise, the rest of the NP could have been scrapped in deference to Milwaukee's superior PCE alignment. Scrap Stampede Pass, scrap Marshall Canyon, scrap or branchline the Ritzville line, scrap Evaro Hill, scrap Homestake Pass, scrap Bozeman Pass, scrap or branchline the Glendive line, use the ND line as a grain branch or scrap it, scrap the Garrison-Butte line in deference to Milwaukee's Butte line.

And with a Milwaukee takeover of NP, GN would have been left hanging with only CB&Q as it's partner, so we'd have the Great Burlington Northern. No NP land grants to lower borrowing costs for their expensive wish list of projects, like the new Cascade Tunnel, so GN would have been left to struggle over the Wellington, ... er Tye line. No funds for the Oregon Trunk line and the Bieber connection with WP. Meanwhile, Milwaukee Northern would use it's new found borrowing power to constuct it's new St Paul Pass line with 0.8% ruling grades (and now the Milwaukee Northern can scrap or regionalize the Clark Fork line west of St. Regis), perhaps a new Mullan Pass tunnel with 1% ruling grades. As time would have gone on, the Great Burlington Northern would struggle, and eventually bankruptcy by 1970 would force the GBN to retrench it's High Line by order of the Trustee, making the GBN a mostly Midwest Granger, eventually swallowed up by the Rock Island.

"A butterfly flaps it's wings........." That's how things really shake out, the luck of the draw.

[Murphy Siding]

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

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

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


It would be: The Great Milwuakee vs. Chicago, Burlington & Pacific[:D]

[Anonymous]

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.

[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?