Save the Milwaukee Road

[Anonymous]

The federal government should have saved the Milwaukee Road like they saved Conrail. If you tell me that "it wouldn't be economical because the BN paralleled it," I would have to say that Conrail was in the same position with the eastern roads.
The feds also shouldn't have allowed the MILW to abandon the Pacific Extension because it killed many small towns out west.

[arbfbe]

Employees on Lines West tried to get any sort of support in Congress they could to stave off abandonment but there was no interest by the politicians at the time. Jimmy Carter was under attack by the opposing party due to the hostage situation in Iran, Montana's congressional delegation was mostly low seniority members and with only 4 members pretty small potatoes. The mood of the rest of the Congress was just to let the market forces work, let the MILW wither and hopefully make the BN a stronger transportation system to insure rail service out west. If anyone had predicted BNSF's market dominance today, I am sure the MILW would have fared better. Keep in mind there are large segments of the US who do not have a clue about what western states are like. Most think that if they have something in NJ or CA it must be the same in the Dkotas, MT, ID and WY. Besides there are not enough people out west to really matter, anyway.

The Conrail and MILW situations were really different animals. In the northeast they were facing collapse of nearly every rail system serving millions of people. In the west the MILW was just one road paralleling two relatively strong roads in the BN and UP that would be left to serve the population living there.

[nanaimo73]

Railbullfan
I am not sure if many small towns were killed by the Milwaukee abandoning the PCE in Montana. A lot of this track was beside BN or picked up by other carriers after 1980. Harlowton would be the most effected town, along with Roundup, Melstone and Ryegate. Which towns interest you and what was the effect on them by the CMSP&P leaving ?

[trainboyH16-44]

QUOTE: Originally posted by arbfbe

Besides there are not enough people out west to really matter, anyway.

Funny story, I was with some friends discussind schoolwork, and one of them was trying to find cities of northern Montana. We figured out eventually that there aren't any, as the best I could come up with was a small town called Dutton. Anyone here from Dutton?
Trainboy
P.S. Didn't think so

[arbfbe]

No, I am not from there but I have been there. It is on the BNSF line from Great Falls to Shelby.

I find it hard to believe you could not find any cities or communities along the Hi-Line in Montana. Think Glasgow, Kremling, Wolf Point, Havre, Shelby, Cut Bank, Whitefish, Kalispell, Libby and Troy for starters. You and your friend obviously didn't try very hard are unwilling to do the research with an atlas or online.

Better luck next time and stop out and visit some time. Pick up an Amtrak timetable and look up the schedule for the Empire Builder and get an idea of towns in northern Montana, Idaho and North Dakota. There are some really nice people who live there.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainboyH16-44
Funny story, I was with some friends discussind schoolwork, and one of them was trying to find cities of northern Montana. We figured out eventually that there aren't any, as the best I could come up with was a small town called Dutton. Anyone here from Dutton?
Trainboy
P.S. Didn't think so

Well, I do try and attend "Dutton Fun Day," every year. A nice excuse to visit the Rocky Mountain Front, and, there are very nice people around those parts.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

Here is the perspective of one politician's view of the abandonment.

Interview with Senator George McGovern 9/1/2000.

SOL: Senator, I appreciate you taking this time to speak with me on your memories of the Milwaukee Railroad, and particularly on your recollection of the Milwaukee Railroad Restructuring Act.

SENATOR McGOVERN: Well certainly, as I mentioned to you last night, I grew up in Mitchell, South Dakota, a block away from the Milwaukee depot there. So, most of my childhood memories are of the trains, the Milwaukee Road, the people that worked for it, and its important role in the life of the town and of South Dakota.

SOL: So you found yourself with these memories, involved in 1980 in trying to find a way to save the Milwaukee Road in bankruptcy.

SENATOR McGOVERN: Well, yes. At the time, I was on the Senate Agriculture Committee, also on Foreign Relations and the Joint Economic Committee. The Milwaukee Road hearings were conducted by the Committee on Transportation, Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

SOL: How did you appear on this committee?

McGOVERN: Well, since I was a senator from an affected state, I asked to be able to attend the hearing and examine witnesses. This is a courtesy that is extended in the Senate.

SOL: The newspaper accounts of those hearings indicated that the Trustee of the Milwaukee Road, Stanley Hillman, appeared and testified.

SENATOR McGOVERN: Well, yes, he was proposing to abandon all of this line that was of such great importance to South Dakota and to the Western States that the Milwaukee served, and he was asked to come and testify to explain the basis for his proposal to abandon these lines.

SOL: You reportedly asked him to explain how he came to his decision and he reportedly answered it wasn’t profitable for the railroad. You reportedly asked him what the revenues for the line were, and he reportedly answered that he didn’t know. You reportedly asked him what the expenses were, then, and he said he didn’t know that either. How did you react to this?

SENATOR McGOVERN: Well, Senator Magnuson of Washington had called it the largest abandonment of railway mileage in American history, which it was, and here is this trustee who doesn’t even have any figures on why. It struck me that here is this man, in charge of such an important situation, and seemed to know so little about the facts. You would think that he wouldn’t appear before a Senate Committee to explain his rationale for abandonment without having the figures of revenues and expenses, of profits and losses. It was frustrating, I can tell you, I was irritated and angry about it. That road was vital to South Dakota, and the other states through which it passed. I couldn’t believe that this man didn’t have the answers to what seemed to be rather elementary questions. Without that information, we weren’t in a very good position to move on to say or understand why are you abandoning this line? How could we know what to do at the federal level without that kind of information. It was a vital rail link for South Dakota. It provided a vital service for South Dakota, both for freight and for passengers. I was very upset at this idea of closing down this line, and that hearing didn’t do anything to quiet my resentment at the closing of the line, quite the contrary, I wondered how the decision could have been made in the first place if these people seemed to lack even basic information about what their operating situation was. This trustee didn’t seem to know anything at all about it, and I found this remarkable and appalling. The other members of the committee shared my view.

SOL: The Milwaukee Road receivership took place at the same time that Chrysler had encountered severe problems and had received substantial government assistance. Did this affect the attitude of Congress regarding assistance.

SENATOR McGOVERN: Well, you know, I’m kind of known as a liberal, but on many matters I’m much more of a conservative. I’ve got some conservative instincts, and one of them is that I hate to see old, established institutions disappear. I don’t want to see Chrysler Motors go under. I don’t want to see Lockheed Aircraft fail. I don’t want to see the Rockefeller Center in New York sold to the Japanese. Most of all, I don’t want to see the Milwaukee Railroad in South Dakota close. Those are my instincts on it; I’m always ready to fight to preserve old institutions that are intertwined with people’s lives. It’s not just the economic factors, but the Milwaukee Railroad was a social and political and economic force in South Dakota. It had a lot to do with the development of the state and with the prosperity of the state. It wasn’t just a matter of dollars and cents, there were lives on the line. The workers that worked on the railroad, the passengers that relied on the railroad for most of a century, the shepards, people along the right-of-way. It was a major concern of people in our state.

SOL: Since it left Montana, my calculations show that Montana wheat farmers pay about 30% more to ship their wheat than the farmer’s in Nebraska pay to ship wheat through Montana to the same Pacific Coast ports. It costs them over a third of the value of their entire crop, and that was when wheat was at $3.80 a bushel. Now that wheat is under $2.00, I’m not sure how much wheat Montana farmers can even afford to ship.

SENATOR McGOVERN: That just kills the farmers. Those figures are just heartbreaking. Farmers just can’t make with this combination of current prices and high freight charges.

SOL: Is there a need to reregulate the freight rail industry?

SENATOR McGOVERN: Absolutely I do. I’m not sure we did the airlines a favor by deregulating them, and I know we didn’t do the country as a whole a service by deregulating the railroads. Deregulation hasn’t been all that its cracked up to be. I think these vital arteries of public transportation should be under public regulation.

SOL: At the time the Milwaukee was in receivership, and its fate being argued in the Congress during the debates over the Milwaukee Railroad Restructuring Act, I heard that some eastern Senators, after they had gotten their Conrail bailout, weren’t supportive of assisting the Milwaukee.

SENATOR McGOVERN: There is no question that was the view of some people. But, that didn’t embrace all of them from the east. Some of them were very supportive. I wish I could recall all of them. I think Senator Kennedy was very supportive, John Pastore of Rhode Island, Claiborne Pell. There were several of the eastern senators that stood with us on the fight, but I’m afraid that the majority of eastern senators, after they saved Conrail, didn’t really involve themselves in this fight.

SOL: Did you have any sense in terms of the Milwaukee itself, as an enterprise, was this receivership the result of self-inflicted wounds, or an inevitable evolution within the rail industry itself?

SENATOR McGOVERN: I would like to think that it shouldn’t be laid at the door of management alone. I didn’t know all of the Milwaukee’s top executives, but I knew some of them, and they impressed me as good men. I guess I had a sense there might have been some management problems, but I can’t really give you a professional answer on that one. I was ready to save that railroad no matter what the cost.

SOL: Like you, I grew up very close to the Milwaukee tracks, and so in addition the economic considerations, there’s always a personal feeling about what happened. What’s your personal feelings about the Milwaukee Road disappearing from our history?

SENATOR McGOVERN: It’s a sad thing to me. We moved into that house in Mitchell just a short block away from the Milwaukee line when I was just six years old. We lived there for a number of years. Then we moved about three blocks away and lived there until I went into the service for World War II. I knew the workers there, some of the engineers, some of the people at the depot, so I was personally heartbroken when we lost that line. There was something about the Milwaukee Railroad that no other railroad seemed to have for me. My father had the same feeling about it. As you know he was a Methodist minister, in those days he was kind of a traveling minister, and he visited a number of different churches in the Dakotas. He always traveled on the Milwaukee line; in those days they used to give clergymen a pass, maybe they still do, I don’t know. Well, he thought the Milwaukee Railroad could do no wrong. He thought it was just a wonderful railway. He died in 1944 while I was overseas, and the Milwaukee was going great guns, then, at capacity. So my father didn’t live to see what happened, but he would have been crushed if anyone had ever told him that line was going to go under. I felt the same way. It’s terribly sad. I spent a lot of hours riding the Milwaukee. They had that great train, the Hiawatha. It went from Sioux Falls to Chicago. I feel sorry for kids today, they can’t ride those trains, they don’t know what a steam engine is. That was where the real romance was; I can’t get much out of these diesel trains. Those steam trains were something.

SOL: Before the Milwaukee Railroad Restructuring Act, was the 4R act of any effective assistance to the railroads.

SENATOR McGOVERN: The 4R act made sense, the railroads were in trouble in the mid-1970's, I voted for it, but I don’t know the long term effects of the act, though.

SOL: Were there any other senators you recall working to save the Milwaukee out west?

SENATOR McGOVERN: Well, certainly Senator Mansfield, he might have been retired by then, but I remember him taking a real strong interest in this. Senator Magnuson of Washington, Quentin Burdick of North Dakota, Scoop Jackson, Baucus. Magnuson was very good. He worked very hard on this, he was a railway lover, and his heart was in it.

SOL: Senator, I surely appreciate you taking this time to talk with me about this.

SENATOR McGOVERN: Well, I enjoyed this chance to reminisce.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

Save it for what? If it wasn't economically sustainable, who would pay for it? You? Me?

Someone would have to.

There were some railroads that should have never been built. The Lehigh Valley west of the coal country of Pennsylvania. The Rock Island west of the Quad Cities (and a case could have been made that it shouldn't have been built that far). The Milwaukee Road west of the Twin Cities. I'm sure you can think of others.

Some tend to romanticize the old "Fallen Flags" because they had railfan appeal; some lament the jobs that were lost; some lament the towns that no longer had service. But if the jobs had produced a service that enough people wanted to buy, if the towns generated enough business to warrant the railroad's continuation - they'd still be there.

Tell me you liked the visual effects - from the railfan standpoint - of the old west end of the Milwaukee. But don't tell me that its fate should have been different from what happened to it.

The Government saved Conrail because it needed saving; it was vital to the part of the country it served. The west end of the Milwaukee wasn't. And Conrail wound up paying for itself. The Milwaukee would never have done that.

Old Timer

[bobwilcox]

It is incredible that McGovern was a serious candidate for President of the US. Of course most of the MILW track in his home state was saved after SD passed their special sales tax.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer

Save it for what? If it wasn't economically sustainable, who would pay for it? You? Me?Someone would have to.

Please provide any numbers you might have that supports this opinion, that is, to show that it was not economically sustainable. I keep seeing this argument, and I keep looking for the proof, or at least something resembling evidence, because it is an interesting argument and deserves a full hearing based on actual evidence. I would appreciate seeing your actual numbers and analysis on this.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer

Save it for what? If it wasn't economically sustainable, who would pay for it? You? Me?Someone would have to.

Please provide any numbers you might have that supports this opinion, that is, to show that it was not economically sustainable. I keep seeing this argument, and I keep looking for the proof, or at least something resembling evidence, because it is an interesting argument and deserves a full hearing based on actual evidence. I would appreciate seeing your actual numbers and analysis on this.

Best regards, Michael Sol

If I want to load a car of lumber in Harlowton, MT in 2005 I can not do it.
How that came to be can be an interesting discussion but that does not change the fact that where there was a railroad there is no longer a railroad.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer

Save it for what? If it wasn't economically sustainable, who would pay for it? You? Me?Someone would have to.

Please provide any numbers you might have that supports this opinion, that is, to show that it was not economically sustainable. I keep seeing this argument, and I keep looking for the proof, or at least something resembling evidence, because it is an interesting argument and deserves a full hearing based on actual evidence. I would appreciate seeing your actual numbers and analysis on this.

Best regards, Michael Sol

If I want to load a car of lumber in Harlowton, MT in 2005 I can not do it.
How that came to be can be an interesting discussion but that does not change the fact that where there was a railroad there is no longer a railroad.

Well, that was not his point, was it?

QUOTE: Oldtimer
The Government saved Conrail because it needed saving; it was vital to the part of the country it served. The west end of the Milwaukee wasn't. And Conrail wound up paying for itself. The Milwaukee would never have done that.

I see some strongly stated conclusions here. I would appreciate the courtesy of seeing whether there is an actual economic and financial basis for them, or whether they are just made up.


Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

On this whole subject of which RR's were economically viable and which ones weren't, let's turn things around to provide some perspective. All the evidence provided so far gives ample evidence of the economic viability of the Milwaukee PCE. The PCE made money, and was at least as viable as the BN lines, if not more so.

The difference between the Milwaukee and BN lies in the comparitive corporate structures and managerial decisions as follows: (1)The disasterous decision of Milwaukee management to forego the PCE in favor of it's Midwestern network, when just the opposite would have been the right move in terms of streamlining operations, (2) the back office actions of BN regarding the Gateway Conditions, (3) BN's influence over the federal government regarding the ultimate decisions to let the PCE go, and (4) the fact that BN retained more offline revenue via the original NP land grants, which eventually evolved into an unofficial subsidiary known as Plum Creek.

Thus, it can be argued that the federal government actually bailed out BN on several fronts, aiding in eliminating the sole competition through the Northern Tier which allowed BN to begin it's "differential pricing" policies in earnest. The result has been a de facto tax on these captive customers, probably amounting to more than an official tax to preserve the PCE ala Conrail.

It can be legitimately argued that the PCE retrenchment is in fact BN's Conrailesque bailout.

[Anonymous]

It seems to me that the Milwaukee Road was the odd man out for the part of America that it ran through, much like the Rock Island in the mid-west. It was one railroad too many in an otherwise saturated market. Granted, there was some room for competition, and in it's hey day, the Milwaukee gave as well as it took.

So was Milwaukee's only chance for survival merger with the Chicago & North Western? I know that fell apart for various reasons, but it might have preserved the Pacific Coast Extension as a viable alternative to Burlington Northern. It's unfortunate that Milwaukee's slacker management wasn't more committed to the survival or actual merger of the road to create a better transportation system.

Wether merger with another railroad could have ensured the survival of the Pacific Coast Extension is something we'll never know, and as the way things worked out, it probably doesn't matter, but it's still fun to talk about the "what if." Once a railroad, now it's done. R.I.P. Milwaukee Road.

[jimrice4449]

First let me point out that I worked for the Milwuake out of St. Maries Id. east to Alberton and west to Othello. That said, when the Milwaukee PCE was built it was built relatively rapidly because the track gangs worked from many point simultaneously. This was made possible because they were able to ship materials in on the parallel NP. Shouldn't somebody have considered the implications of this?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jimrice4449

First let me point out that I worked for the Milwuake out of St. Maries Id. east to Alberton and west to Othello. That said, when the Milwaukee PCE was built it was built relatively rapidly because the track gangs worked from many point simultaneously. This was made possible because they were able to ship materials in on the parallel NP. Shouldn't somebody have considered the implications of this?

That a poorly built and inefficient railroad was used to build a much better built and more efficient railroad?

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

jimrice4449,

Off topic, but do you work for the SMRR by any chance?