The Great Northern Railroad

[VerMontanan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

I had the good fortune yesterday of being visited at my office by a retired senior member of the BN Engineering Dept. Forty five years experience. Ex NP. We have been working on some mutual history projects together for a number of years, and he was in town for his annual visit.

I thought, "well, this is an opportunity to get a perspective on all this from someone who actually dealt with the engineering problems on the GN/BN."

So, I read him some comments from this thread.

His response.

"James J. Hill was no railroading genius from an engineering standpoint. The GN and the BN have spent the last 80 years trying to fix his mistakes. When Ralph Budd got to be president, he thought he needed to prove that he was a worthy successor to James J. Hill. So, he undertook as many of Hill's weird ideas as he could. GN was going to build a new east-west line in Central Montana. They bored tunnels and built the grades. They're all still there. No track. A complete waste of money. But, he was afraid the NP was going to build in there and it was "his" territory. There was a lot of that. He spent a lot of time and money trying to block "invasions" from the NP.

"Then he started on the Cascade Tunnel. Things were bad enough there. Anything that was saved by the Marias Pass crossing was lost at Stevens Pass. But this tunnel idea. It almost broke the Company. They couldn't pay for it.

"There wouldn't be a GN to be talking about if it wasn't for that iron ore traffic on the East End. GN didn't survive that tunnel debacle because it was a better transcontinental railroad. It survived because of that iron ore and the fact that they could run it all downhill from the Mesabe Range. It was huge, 25, 50% of GN's tonnage.

"The tunnel was a disaster. We spent the last 60 years trying to fix it. It's enormously expensive to operate. It had a negative rate of return from the beginning, and still does and always will. While I was there we developed a plan to reroute the whole line south through Ellensburg up to Easton, and then a tunnel, a $1.2 billion price tag. It was better to just abandon Stevens Pass and the Cascade Tunnel entirely than to try and fix it. But that's why it was there: Hill had thought of it, and so even though it made no sense, Budd just had to do it.

"But, BN didn't have that kind of money, and yet in the long run, it made sense to do it compared to that tunnel and those grades.

"Even the NP crossing at Stampede Pass is better. It's only a two-mile tunnel. It doesn't need clearing, and the equipment doesn't have time to overheat."

"GN and BN have spent a lot of money trying to fix Hill's and Budd's mistakes. Look at the Bieber line. It should have never been built. It's ridiculous."

Me: "With those big engines running the fans at Cascade Tunnel, isn't that almost kind of like helper engines for helper engines."

J-: "Well, exactly. That tunnel is a very expensive operation, and it slows down the whole railroad. Sometime you and ________ ought to sit down and do an Operating Ratio study of the GN and look at that iron ore traffic. That carried the railroad. If it hadn't been for that, there''s no way they could have paid for all of Budd's projects that were really all just a waste of money, following Hill's ideas which just didn't make sense. I think you'd see that GN might have been the first to go, rather than the last to survive, but for that iron ore. It paid for all the mistakes. NP and Milwaukee didn't have anything like that to fall back on."

Best regards, Michael Sol

Michael,

I'm so glad you found someone that shares your fixation with Cascade Tunnel. Perhaps when you meet with this gentleman again you can ask the relative merits of:

1. The SP&S route along the Columbia River vs. any of the Cascade crossings and in the case of the Milwaukee, which had two major hills, the Saddle Mountains. This is relevent because GN and NP did have the option to use the SP&S route, while the MILW was obligated to haul everything over the mountain. With regard to MILW traffic for Longview, and later Portland after trackage rights were gained from the BN merger, his thoughts on moving traffic from Spokane to Longview via MILW or via GN or NP and their subsidiary would be interesting. In other words, if you're going to compare the Cascade Tunnel route with that the MILW and NP, you must include the SP&S line, which GN also had access to, as they (along with NP) used it too.

2. GN's route between, say Whitefish and Spokane along the Stillwater, Tobacco, Kootenai, Pend O'reille and Little Spokane rivers versus the MILW crossing of the Bitterroots between Missoula and Spokane (grade difference of 1.0 percent in favor of GN).

3. GN's route over the Continental Divide in Montana versus that of NP and MILW (grade difference westbound of 1.0 percent in favor of GN).

4. GN's crossing of Hi-Line in Montana versus the NP and MILW crossing of Belt Mountains (grade difference of .2 to 1.1 percent in favor of GN).

5. GN's crossing of North Dakota versus that of NP and MILW (grade difference westbound of .4 percent in favor of GN).

While "whatever the GN saved on Marias Pass was lost on Stevens" might be what those who fight against history and reality want to hear, it also suggests that all GN tonnage went over Stevens Pass. Not only is this not true with the SP&S alternative, but it also ignores the numerous other grades that the competition fought on a daily basis that GN did not.

One also had to wonder why successors to Hill and Budd kept building on the "mistakes" right up to what he have today: The Great Northern route being the main freight and passenger route between the Upper Midwest and Pacific Northwest. There were abundant opportunities to right this wrong if it was a wrong. GN merged with NP, so any NP route could have been used. The MILW went broke and abandoned the west end of the railroad. BN could have had any part of this route. So, since, in the end, the operation of any railroad is all about making money, the question remains: Why did railroader after railroader for generation after generation keep the GN route in operation?

As for the Bieber line being "ridiculous", this is pretty much proven incorrect (again, I hate to interject reality) by today's operation of the line. The route averages eight trains daily, and is a vital alternative to the only other route available, the UP (ex-SP). Delays to trains (Amtrak's Coast Starlight is a prime example) along the ex-SP route are legendary, so without this alternative GN-built route, it's difficult to see how this additional traffic could be accommodated. Actually, the major limiting factor for the Bieber line, more commonly known as the Inside Gateway, is the UP (ex-WP) south of Keddie, where BNSF trains join UP traffic to and from Salt Lake City/Ogden and east. But even in GN and BN days, this route often fielded three trains daily in each direction (in GN days, run through between GN, WP, and ATSF).

As for the line through Central Montana: This is a true story, but not unique in American Railroading. It would only have merit if it could be shown that such antics by the Great Northern led to its demise. Of course, the reality is that NP and MILW went bankrupt, and GN never did. The 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.

While some may label lines such as the Inside Gateway "ridiculous" the same could probably be said of others, such as the Milwaukee Pacific Coast Extension. Bottom line: Strong routes survive for whatever reason. The Inside Gateway is a vital, viable route. The MILW Pacific Extension is not. Or at least, maybe the ridiculousness of the Inside Gateway has yet to be realized, but the MILW PCE has, or whatever.

In addition to the fact that the ex-Great Northern route is largely used as the main freight and passenger route across the Northern Tier of states, and that the ex-GN Inside Gateway continues as one of only two major routes between Washington, Oregon and California, here are other examples where, for some mysterious reason, the GN route remains and others do not:

1. Seattle to British Columbia. The ex-GN route survives as the main route between Seattle and Vancouver, BC. NP's route to Sumas is partially abandoned. Most abandoned is the ex-MILW barge - and - branchline operation between Seattle and Sumas.

2. Twin Cities to Twin Ports. The ex-GN route survives as the only remaining route intact. The ex-NP route (also used by the MILW) is partially abandoned and shortlined.

3. Iron Ore. The ex-GN route to the Mesabi Range still handles several trains of taconite daily. Production on the Cuyana Range (served by NP and Soo Line) is nonexistent, and participation in hauling taconite by the E&LS, successor to the MILW lines on the Menominee Range in Michigan's Upper Peninsula is minimal.

4. Winnipeg. It is the ex-GN route to the CN at Noyes that gives BNSF access to Winnipeg today. The former NP route is abandoned/shortlined.

While there are certainly GN routes (such as Spokane to Sandpoint) which have been abandoned or shortlined in favor of others, it is a fact that in most cases, it is the GN route that survives (75 percent of GN track is operated today compared to 1970, only 62 percent of NP, 49 percent of MILW, and much less of the PCE of the MILW). So, I guess it's up to the individual to determine why things are as they are: Conspiracy? Coincidence? Blind Luck? History? Or, as is most often the case, did the strong route survive (again)?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

I wonder what your BN friend has to say about the Flathead Tunnel, given his less than complementary exposure of the flaws inherent in the Cascade Tunnel. If GN/BN had 20 years to analyze the negative operational effects of diesels running through the Cascade Tunnel, why did they go ahead and okay the USACOE reroute via Flathead tunnel after Libby Dam was built, rather than exploring reroutes farther south with shorter tunnel(s)?

Dave, I've always assumed that since trains really don't work hard through the Flathead tunnel, it was a different situation. I'll ask.

In Central Montana, GN and MILW had agreed to operate a joint line from Grass Range east. The GN organized a subsidiary, the Montana Eastern Railway. On December 1, 1917, the Milwaukee and the "Eastern" agreed that GN would construct east from Lewistown and Milwaukee north from Grass Range to an intersection. From that point the companies would operate a joint line east to the confluence of the Musselshell River and Flatwillow Creek. The Milwaukee's line through Tiegen to Winnett is the same grade, but the joint line would have continued on another 30 miles or so.

Milwaukee was to drop south to Melstone, while GN went off then in an easterly direction. I believe he said to Brockton, Brockway?

Best -- Michael Sol

[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.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

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

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

GN probably had some yard goats in Sioux Falls.

Where is VerMontanan ?

For fun, I checked the two yard switchers here in town. Both are ex-CBQ,and are both in orange and green formal dress.

[Anonymous]

That "new east-west line in Central Montana" - is that the tunnels and grades just east of Lewistown MT? I know Milwaukee had a branch from Lewistown to Grassrange just a few miles south of present Highway 200. The suspected GN built grade runs closer to Highway 200 possibly as far as Winnett (I'm not sure if the remaining grade from Grassrange to Winnett is part of the Milwaukee branch or part of the GN grade).

Michael, I wonder what your BN friend has to say about the Flathead Tunnel, given his less than complementary exposure of the flaws inherent in the Cascade Tunnel. If GN/BN had 20 years to analyze the negative operational effects of diesels running through the Cascade Tunnel, why did they go ahead and okay the USACOE reroute via Flathead tunnel after Libby Dam was built, rather than exploring reroutes farther south with shorter tunnel(s)?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

VERY interesting. Could your friend be convinced to comment more fully on some of the "What-Iffs"? Particularly for those of us that know enough about things like line location and the economics of such (which, essentially, this thread is about) to be incredibly dangerous, such insight would be, well, GREAT (no Northern intended).

Well, that has always been my idea, is that these actual experts need to be consulted more than the ostensible experts [e.g. "I work for a railroad. I know everything"]. My point in this post was actually to write down my conversation from my notes before I forgot the details. However, what appears above was pretty much the extent of the conversation on that particular topic.

We are meeting Sunday for an afternoon work session on other history projects, but if I can work it in, I may prevail on the hapless victim for an extended more formal interview which I can record and document.

And for the record, these comments do not reflect my opinion since I don't have any engineering experience with the GN line and, for instance, I barely know where the Bieber line is, let alone anything about it. The comment was dropped into the conversation by J-, and was a surprise to me as I didn't know that Bieber was controversial in any way.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[kenneo]

Michael ---

VERY interesting. Could your friend be convinced to comment more fully on some of the "What-Iffs"? Particularly for those of us that know enough about things like line location and the economics of such (which, essentially, this thread is about) to be incredibly dangerous, such insight would be, well, GREAT (no Northern intended).

[MichaelSol]

I had the good fortune yesterday of being visited at my office by a retired senior member of the BN Engineering Dept. Forty five years experience. Ex NP. We have been working on some mutual history projects together for a number of years, and he was in town for his annual visit.

I thought, "well, this is an opportunity to get a perspective on all this from someone who actually dealt with the engineering problems on the GN/BN."

So, I read him some comments from this thread.

His response.

"James J. Hill was no railroading genius from an engineering standpoint. The GN and the BN have spent the last 80 years trying to fix his mistakes. When Ralph Budd got to be president, he thought he needed to prove that he was a worthy successor to James J. Hill. So, he undertook as many of Hill's weird ideas as he could. GN was going to build a new east-west line in Central Montana. They bored tunnels and built the grades. They're all still there. No track. A complete waste of money. But, he was afraid the NP was going to build in there and it was "his" territory. There was a lot of that. He spent a lot of time and money trying to block "invasions" from the NP.

"Then he started on the Cascade Tunnel. Things were bad enough there. Anything that was saved by the Marias Pass crossing was lost at Stevens Pass. But this tunnel idea. It almost broke the Company. They couldn't pay for it.

"There wouldn't be a GN to be talking about if it wasn't for that iron ore traffic on the East End. GN didn't survive that tunnel debacle because it was a better transcontinental railroad. It survived because of that iron ore and the fact that they could run it all downhill from the Mesabe Range. It was huge, 25, 50% of GN's tonnage.

"The tunnel was a disaster. We spent the last 60 years trying to fix it. It's enormously expensive to operate. It had a negative rate of return from the beginning, and still does and always will. While I was there we developed a plan to reroute the whole line south through Ellensburg up to Easton, and then a tunnel, a $1.2 billion price tag. It was better to just abandon Stevens Pass and the Cascade Tunnel entirely than to try and fix it. But that's why it was there: Hill had thought of it, and so even though it made no sense, Budd just had to do it.

"But, BN didn't have that kind of money, and yet in the long run, it made sense to do it compared to that tunnel and those grades.

"Even the NP crossing at Stampede Pass is better. It's only a two-mile tunnel. It doesn't need clearing, and the equipment doesn't have time to overheat."

"GN and BN have spent a lot of money trying to fix Hill's and Budd's mistakes. Look at the Bieber line. It should have never been built. It's ridiculous."

Me: "With those big engines running the fans at Cascade Tunnel, isn't that almost kind of like helper engines for helper engines."

J-: "Well, exactly. That tunnel is a very expensive operation, and it slows down the whole railroad. Sometime you and ________ ought to sit down and do an Operating Ratio study of the GN and look at that iron ore traffic. That carried the railroad. If it hadn't been for that, there''s no way they could have paid for all of Budd's projects that were really all just a waste of money, following Hill's ideas which just didn't make sense. I think you'd see that GN might have been the first to go, rather than the last to survive, but for that iron ore. It paid for all the mistakes. NP and Milwaukee didn't have anything like that to fall back on."

Best regards, Michael Sol

[kenneo]

Speculation can be an interesting pastime, but it can't change the reality of the present.

That having been said, after the BN merger and the closing of the PCE West of Terry, the alternative route from Spokane of SPS to Kahlotus,O-Dub rebuild to Connell, NP to where it turns away from the MILW to go over Stampede, and the PCE byond to Tacoma could easily have spelled the end of the Hi-Line as well as the other abandonments/downgrades that actually have occurred.

The part of the SPS between Kohlotus and Pasco would be gone as it is now and the NP between the departure from the MILW to the vicinity of Auburn over Stampede and down the Green River would be gone. The City Tacoma would have been thrilled byond words. Probably the Hi-Line over Stevens might also be gone.

A case for keeping the MILW over St. Joe as a short cut to the MRL at St. Regis might even have been econimical and eliminating the NP between Sandpoint and St. Regis. Who can know.

[VerMontanan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
One obvious option which the rail professionals at BN neglected to analyze was to keep the SP&S line from Spokane to Kahlotus, then rebuild the old OR&N branch from Kahlotus to Connell, where the NP line would be utilized the rest of the way to Pasco.

How do you know the BN did not analyze this alternative?

Because I believe that I thought of it first (unless you can document otherwise), and I have never worked for BN/BNSF.

Wow, what an ego. This option was commonly suggested among BN employees back in the early 1980s when the removal of one of the routes was being suggested. Traffic levels back during this time period were such that constructing such new routes were not looked upon as necessary expenditures. That's one of the reasons that the MILW route across Snoqualmie Pass - one of the few pieces of the MILW main west of Terry worth keeping from a transcontinental route perspective - was allowed to die. Perhaps if traffic was heavier, there would have been a greater interest.

Something that I haven't seen brought up in this discussion about why the SP&S was abandoned was the lack of customers. It's very unlikely that the ex-NP route could have been abandoned in favor of the SP&S since the route had, and continues to have numerous on line customers. Additionally, the route would be necessary to access Connell and the branch to Warden and the Moses Lake area.

[VerMontanan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

The crucial historical fact being conveniently ignored by Mark is that it took alot of major rerouting and expensive reconstructing before the GN was finally able to boast a decent average gradient on it's PCE. And the funny thing is, even then GN could only carry half of what the Milwaukee carried out of Seattle and Tacoma. Good thing JJ had those NP land grants to carry him through!

Why is this a crucial fact? The real fact is that GN had by far the best profile of any railroad between the Upper Midwest and Pacific Northwest, and it remains that way today because of these changes. While you gleefully chastize the GN for taking the steps that continues to make its route the primary conduit for east-west freight (and passenger) traffic across America's Northern Tier, it's interesting that the other railroads are not similarly criticized for their NOT improving their routes to compete. So, you can play "what if" or any other childish games, but the fact is that the GN came out on top. And, for the record, I especially loved your comment about the GN having as many facelifts as Phyllis Diller. Well, here's something else the GN and Phyllis have in common: a.)both are still around, and b.)both were/are around longer than was the Milwaukee's Pacific Extension. (Ms. Diller turned 88 this year.)

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Why did the GN not build the Spokane to Portland line as a GN line? Because GN needed NP to help foot the bill. And where did the NP ever get any cash? Those massive land grants.

The NP land grants saved the Hill lines. Without them, the GN would have gone the way of the Colorado Midland.

Unlikely since the GN and NP were different companies, and I'd love to hear of specific documentation of the GN deriving income from NP land grants. And, like the Phyllis Diller comment, let's just say that the PCE of the Milwaukee DID go the way of the Colorado Midland, so such speculation is ridiculous at best.

Hill envisioned the GN and NP lines together, and that was the purpose of the SP&S. As for Hill needing the NP to help build this line, the ridiculousnes of this shown by the fact that the SP&S had its own line from Spokane to Pasco. Trackage rights on the NP could easier have been secured, but the profile of the route didn't match Hill's standards. And, when it came time to push on to California, GN wanted NP to participate, but NP opted out as it saw interchange with Southern Pacific in Portland to be the most beneficial way to move its traffic. So, GN pushed on alone, and second north-south route between the Pacific Northwest and California was born, without the help of the NP.

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

BTW, don't you know when DPM was waxing poetic? If you want to get into a DPM compliment contest between the GN and Milwaukee, Milwaukee wins. It is well known that the Milwaukee was DPM's favorite railroad. Either way, his words regarding GN or Milwaukee are not meant to be taken as historical analysis, but as the feel good journalism it was intended to be.

Well, the reason that Mr. Morgan could wax poetic was because he had the knowledge to back it up, unlike some revisionist historians. But I admit that the terms "best" and "strong" certainly would make a GN fan feel good.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Are you saying the original question that started this thread was rhetorically absurd? What kind of question is that?[:)] <FYI-sarcastic smilie!

No, not the topic title or the questions from your first post. It was the Wilcox inquiry.

BTW - you should ask permission to cut and paste an interesting comparison of GN, NP, and Milwaukee during the 1950's and 1960's, from Michael Sol (who else!) on the Milwaukee Road Thread that was just posted today (8-31-05). A good documentation of why the GN was greatly overrated in comparison to NP and Milwaukee.

And just for the record, the GN is one of my top five all time favorite railroads. The same cannot be said for BNSF.......

I read the post on the Milwaukee thread you mention-very interesting indeed. I wouldn't have a clue how to cut and paste something to save my soul![sigh]

[PNWRMNM]

Murphy,

As between the GN and NP in the period after WW I they were competitors who did not swap traffic back and forth among themselves.

They did jointly own the SP&S and CBQ and interchanged traffic with them. The Q was the GN-NP preferred route between St. Paul and Chicago, and provided both GN and NP a route to Kansas City, Denver and Texas over Laurel Montana. Another way to think of Laurel is that the GN and NP provided the Q with its transcontinental route.

I have seen in print claims that traffic that originated and terminated on the NP between Centralia and Vancouver Washington, on which both GN and UP had rights, moving to and from points East of Spokane went via the SP&S. This makes sense as both GN and NP had 2.2% crossings of the Cascade mountains on such traffic while the SP&S was almost flat between Vancouver and Pasco and .4% between Pasco and Spokane. The worst hill on the NP between Seattle and Vancouver was 1% on Napavine Hill which is immedately South (compass direction) of Centralia, so Longview, Kalama, Vancouver and Portland traffic had effectively no hills to climb via the SP&S.

I do not know how much stock ownership the GN had in the NP after Northern Securities was broke up by Teddy Roosevelt and his henchmen. GN Annual Reports of the period would disclose that.

Common control can be had by GN holding NP stock, of by major stockholders of GN as individuals, also holding major blocks of NP stock as well. This occurred to a significant degree after Northern Securities was disbanded.

Mac

[Murphy Siding]

emblematically???

[Anonymous]

Historically and emblematically, GN is more interesting.

BNSF is an example of why there is such a thing as too much merger mania.

[Murphy Siding]

futuremodal: Why is GN a thumbs up, and BNSF a thumbs down?

Oh, Lord ! I hope that wasn't a rhetorical question![:P]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Are you saying the original question that started this thread was rhetorically absurd? What kind of question is that?[:)] <FYI-sarcastic smilie!

No, not the topic title or the questions from your first post. It was the Wilcox inquiry.

BTW - you should ask permission to cut and paste an interesting comparison of GN, NP, and Milwaukee during the 1950's and 1960's, from Michael Sol (who else!) on the Milwaukee Road Thread that was just posted today (8-31-05). A good documentation of why the GN was greatly overrated in comparison to NP and Milwaukee.

And just for the record, the GN is one of my top five all time favorite railroads. The same cannot be said for BNSF.......

[Murphy Siding]

Are you saying the original question that started this thread was rhetorically absurd? What kind of question is that?[:)] <FYI-sarcastic smilie!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

You need a couple drinks, a good cigar, a card game and a sexy woman.

How do you know the BN did not analyze this alternative?[}:)]

FYI - the original question was either rhetorical or absurd.

[edblysard]

Futuremodal,
I think we all realize you have never been a railroader...no one here would ever confuse you with one![:D]

Ed

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
One obvious option which the rail professionals at BN neglected to analyze was to keep the SP&S line from Spokane to Kahlotus, then rebuild the old OR&N branch from Kahlotus to Connell, where the NP line would be utilized the rest of the way to Pasco.

How do you know the BN did not analyze this alternative?

Because I believe that I thought of it first (unless you can document otherwise), and I have never worked for BN/BNSF.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

Murphy,

Books have been written about what you are asking.

In very brief summary the BN routed traffic to the best available line between any two points, and abandoned or mothballed the inferior line.

The BNSF prime freight route from Puget Sound to Chicago is: NP Tacoma to Seattle GN Seattle to Spokane, NP Spokane to Sandpoint Idaho, and GN mostly to the Twin Cities. I say mostly here because I think there is one segment of 100 miles more or less in Minnesota that is ex NP and I am not a Minnesota boy. St Paul to Chicago is the old Q.

In general traffic was shifted off the former NP routes and to the former GN routes because the GN was typically superior in terms of mileage or grades or both. In Washington the NP was about 60 miles longer than the GN with identical grades across the Cascades and across eastern Washington.

In Montana the GN advantage was far lower ruling grade Westward, lower ruling grade Eastward and far fewer mountain grade miles. Mountain grades are slow and soak up fuel and power lie a sponge. They are expensive to operate and threrefor avoided if possible.

Mac

Thanks for the reply. Are you saying that before the merger,NP ran it's freight only on NP lines and GN did the same? I ask this thinking of the common ownership(?) of the 4 railroads involved.

[daveklepper]

I certainly agree Hill built for the future!

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
One obvious option which the rail professionals at BN neglected to analyze was to keep the SP&S line from Spokane to Kahlotus, then rebuild the old OR&N branch from Kahlotus to Connell, where the NP line would be utilized the rest of the way to Pasco.

How do you know the BN did not analyze this alternative?

Because I believe that I thought of it first (unless you can document otherwise), and I have never worked for BN/BNSF.

WOW. This is better than my first cup of coffee.

[PNWRMNM]

Murphy,

Books have been written about what you are asking.

In very brief summary the BN routed traffic to the best available line between any two points, and abandoned or mothballed the inferior line.

The BNSF prime freight route from Puget Sound to Chicago is: NP Tacoma to Seattle GN Seattle to Spokane, NP Spokane to Sandpoint Idaho, and GN mostly to the Twin Cities. I say mostly here because I think there is one segment of 100 miles more or less in Minnesota that is ex NP and I am not a Minnesota boy. St Paul to Chicago is the old Q.

In general traffic was shifted off the former NP routes and to the former GN routes because the GN was typically superior in terms of mileage or grades or both. In Washington the NP was about 60 miles longer than the GN with identical grades across the Cascades and across eastern Washington.

In Montana the GN advantage was far lower ruling grade Westward, lower ruling grade Eastward and far fewer mountain grade miles. Mountain grades are slow and soak up fuel and power lie a sponge. They are expensive to operate and threrefor avoided if possible.

Mac

[Anonymous]

This doesn't count, but I just wish Rocky/Q and Sacagawea existed today as individual independent privately-owned railroads not burdened with excess trackage competing with each other to provide transportation between Chicago and Seattle and points in between. That would be a nice piece of heaven.

[Murphy Siding]

Guys: If we wanted to find out just who had the best route to the PNW,we wouldn't have to debate it. We could just step over to the ongoing battle on the Milwaukee thread. I believe the score is 108 to 108, and going into extra innings![:O]
Both GN and CMStP&P used to go through my town. As of right now, the GN is still going strong as the BNSF, and the Milwaukee is gone.[:(].
So....Can anyone tell me what changes took place after the BN merger,considering that the railroads had the same eveything the day after the merger that they had the day before the merger?[:)]

[beaulieu]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

The crucial historical fact being conveniently ignored by Mark is that it took alot of major rerouting and expensive reconstructing before the GN was finally able to boast a decent average gradient on it's PCE. And the funny thing is, even then GN could only carry half of what the Milwaukee carried out of Seattle and Tacoma. Good thing JJ had those NP land grants to carry him through!

Why did the GN not build the Spokane to Portland line as a GN line? Because GN needed NP to help foot the bill. And where did the NP ever get any cash? Those massive land grants.

The NP land grants saved the Hill lines. Without them, the GN would have gone the way of the Colorado Midland.

BTW, don't you know when DPM was waxing poetic? If you want to get into a DPM compliment contest between the GN and Milwaukee, Milwaukee wins. It is well known that the Milwaukee was DPM's favorite railroad. Either way, his words regarding GN or Milwaukee are not meant to be taken as historical analysis, but as the feel good journalism it was intended to be.

Hill didn't need the NP Land Grants. Four men incorporated the Manitoba Road the basis of the future Great Northern, James J. Hill, George Stephen, Donald Smith, and Norman Kittson. Four men incorporated the Canadian Pacific Railroad, James J. Hill, George Stephen, Donald Smith, and Norman Kittson.
James J. Hill personally selected William C. Van Horne to build the Canadian Pacific as he was too busy building the Great Northern to devote the time required. He hired John F. Stevens to be his locating Engineer of the Great Northern, he is the man who found both Marias Pass and Stevens Pass. When President Roosevelt was looking for an Engineer to build the Panama Canal, James J. Hill recommended John F. Stevens for the job. John F. Stevens built the Panama Canal. When Edward H. Harriman tried to outmanuever JJ Hill for control of the Burlington and the NP he was defeated. Finally and fittingly just before he died when the US Government
went to the world's bankers to borrow money to arm in preparation for World War I no one would lend them any money. James J. Hill stepped forward and Co-signed the loan papers for the US Government, and the money flowed.
All that needs to be said.

BTW - do you know what railroad both William C. Van Horne and T. G. Shaunnessey worked for before JJ Hill hire them to build the Canadian Pacific.
A little midwestern railroad called the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul, later known as the Milwaukee Road, perhaps that is why the Milwaukee is gone and the GN route is still around Hill lured away their most talented managers.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
One obvious option which the rail professionals at BN neglected to analyze was to keep the SP&S line from Spokane to Kahlotus, then rebuild the old OR&N branch from Kahlotus to Connell, where the NP line would be utilized the rest of the way to Pasco.

How do you know the BN did not analyze this alternative?

"Because I believe that I thought of it first (unless you can document otherwise), and I have never worked for BN/BNSF".

Well, that's a bold statement for a one eyed fat man, or anybody else considering you're not Rooster Cogburn. Rooster was a great racing Greyhound as well as a great John Wayne movie character.

There's no way to "document" who though of what first. What is with you? You "believe" you thought of it first, then challenge someone else to "document" you didn't. You need a couple drinks, a good cigar, a card game and a sexy woman. In other words, you need to get your priorities in order.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
One obvious option which the rail professionals at BN neglected to analyze was to keep the SP&S line from Spokane to Kahlotus, then rebuild the old OR&N branch from Kahlotus to Connell, where the NP line would be utilized the rest of the way to Pasco.

How do you know the BN did not analyze this alternative?

Because I believe that I thought of it first (unless you can document otherwise), and I have never worked for BN/BNSF.

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
One obvious option which the rail professionals at BN neglected to analyze was to keep the SP&S line from Spokane to Kahlotus, then rebuild the old OR&N branch from Kahlotus to Connell, where the NP line would be utilized the rest of the way to Pasco.

How do you know the BN did not analyze this alternative?