What happen to Milwaukee Road?

[Murphy Siding]

In March of 1970, William Quinn of CBQ was chosen to be vice-chairman of Burlington Northern. Instead, he chose to return to the presidensy of Milwaukee Road. If this fella had a working knowledge of the inner works of both the *infamous* Hill roads, and the Milwaukee Road, why did he choose Milwaukee Road. Surely, he knew of BN's diabolical plans![:-,]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

In March of 1970, William Quinn of CBQ was chosen to be vice-chairman of Burlington Northern. Instead, he chose to return to the presidensy of Milwaukee Road. If this fella had a working knowledge of the inner works of both the *infamous* Hill roads, and the Milwaukee Road, why did he choose Milwaukee Road. Surely, he knew of BN's diabolical plans![:-,]

Perhaps he felt that BN was the next likely candidate for a Penn Central type debacle. Perhaps he did not feel the Milwaukee would actually do the unthinkable aka scrap the PCE.

What we do know is this: Quinn worked for a Hill line, yet chose a non-Hill line over the BN presidency. What did he know via the inside that you don't know from the outside?[}:)]

[MP173]

Michael:

Does any of your archieves show what kind of revenue per container MILW got for the imports? Also, what was a typical revenue/railcar of freight. I know the tariffs were not so simple to have FAK rates for carload freight, but give me a general idea.

Lets say Chicago to Seattle area.

ed

[MP173]

Dave:

A couple of things. There was quite a bit of TOFC moving from Chicago to the Northwest in that era. I worked for an LTL carrier that consolidated freight into Chicago and there was quite a bit going to the Freight Forwarders such as Clipper, Chi-Can and others. I cannot remember who handled the Northwest, but from my hometown we had windshield wipers and bearings daily....just from one town of 20,000.

However, I can extrapolate that into how many trailerloads...just dont have the data, but I would tend to think there was considerable.

Also, regarding Quinn giving up the Vice Chairman position at BN in 1970. Put it in proper context. Vice Chairman position is basically a glorified put out to pasture position. There is not much to do in that position. Also, recall that the merger of the lines occurred that year, so they were basically assigning people from each line to positions of power (and non power) within the new organization.

Most executives would rather be a CEO and have real power than to be a Vice Chairman. Most folks at that level are driven.

just my thoughts.

ed

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by pactrail

Eric, Thanks for the reply. However the Elbe - Morton - Davidson Lake line is not the line in question. MILW was building a line from Elbe to Ashford and then plotted to Yakama. Some of which followed Highway 704. That right of way is the land plot / ownership in question.

The Mount Rainier SR runs on the Elbe - Morton - Davidson Lake line.

OK....dumb question. Why would the MILW want to go over another pass when they already had a line around it that was "water level"(via Morton)? And what was so important in Yakima that they wanted to enter it via White Pass? That maneuver never did make sense to me. There were (and still are) so many easier ways of getting into there.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Ken, you're set for the straight jacket.

The dominate manufactured good from the Upper Midwest was autos. The time period you're talking about, basically 1970's on up, PNW consumption patterns favored imported manufactures over Midwest manufactures. This is the period when Japanese goods became major market players, and the PNW was a key Japanese market. You just didn't get alot of Chicago manufactured goods bound for the PNW once the import patterns were established. More than likely, any westbound intermodals were getting what was left of the domestic goods market, and since the Milwaukee was favored by the importers via Seattle and Tacoma, what Chicago goods bound for the PNW that were left would probaby favor another routing in defiance of the import friendly Milwaukee. Perhaps also Yellow and Milwaukee just didn't have a working relationship.

They were scraps, Ken, just scraps.

But if you can explain why a "cancer" can dominate the Asian import trade through PNW ports, feel free to expound. It is amazing that you have become so addled that you cannot discern between the favorable position of Milwaukee's PCE relative to the other PNW transcons, and the real cancer on the Milwaukee's system, namely the Midwest Granger lines.

In the meantime, we'll arrange a rendevous between you and those nice young men in their clean white suits and they're coming to take you away, ha ha.......

Intermodal autos? Yes, I know, it happened. But not much. The predominat method for rail movment of finished autos, since boxcars, has been the tri-level auto rack. You're saying this was intermodal traffic and you're wrong again.

Those PNW ports weren't much of anything back then The first Japanese container ship didn't arrive in Seattle until 1970 and China remained a closed society with a communist economic system. Both Seattle and Tacoma had been in significant decline as ports.

"The Box" changed all that. And Seattle/Tacoma became major container ports because of their efficent rail service inland. This rail service was provided by the BN and UP. The MILW couldn't maintain its track (according to Mr. Sol, "The only thing that was in engineering failure was the track". Well, that's pretty much the railroad, now isn't it.) and it couldn't compete. In fact, less than 12 short years after than 1st container ship showed up in Seattle, the MILW was ripped out of the PNW like the cancer it was. If the MILW was "dominating" the port's growing container busines that wouldn't have happend, now would it have?

(source: "The Box" by Marc Levinson.)

The only thing the MILW could do to get any business over its delapidated track was cut the freight rates to buy the business. This took revenues below long term aveage costs, but it did generate cash. Of course if you don't cover long term costs, you're dying. That's what the MILW was doing, it was dying. And in its own futile attempts to generate ca***o keep operating short term it was dragging other railroads down with it. When it was euthanized the way was opened for the BNSF and UP to generate income to keep their service levels up. At least the BNSF has taken advantage of this opportunity.
And the ports of Seattle and Tacoma have benifited greatly from a healthy, service providing, BNSF.

There was significant TOFC business from Chicago to the PNW in the 1970's. As I said, the first Japanese containers didn't arrive in Seattle until 1970, and China was a non-factor in the 70's. You're trying to rewrite history to support your conspiracy theory.

[MichaelSol]

Well, a previous discussion about Milwaukee Road's intermodal traffic into and out of Port of Seattle doesn't have much to do with the entire PNW, nor with domestic intermodal. In essence, to save himself, Greyhounds has completely changed the subject.

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
And Seattle/Tacoma became major container ports because of their efficent rail service inland. This rail service was provided by the BN and UP.

This is just simply false. Washington DOT , Port of Seattle and Port of Tacoma would simply stand up and say "absolutely false."

"MILW was ripped out of the PNW like the cancer it was" The "malignant" PCE.

For something you continue to demonstrate you know zero about, you have incredibly strong emotional hatred for the subject material. Frankly, I've never seen anybody "hate" as much as you do. For technical discussions on traffic share, it's not just inappropriate, it's weird.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
Those PNW ports weren't much of anything back then The first Japanese container ship didn't arrive in Seattle until 1970 .... As I said, the first Japanese containers didn't arrive in Seattle until 1970 ...

QUOTE: Originally posted by grehoundsIf there was ever a statement he's made that shows he's clueless, it's this one:
1. QUOTE: Not much originating in Chicago. Japan just didn't seem to be doing much TOFC/COFC importing.

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds on May 17

Japan? What's Japan got to do with it?

There certainly was significant TOFC business from Chicago to the Pacific Northwest. I routed (as I was instructed) some of it in my very first civilian transportation job with Merchant Shippers, a freight forwarder located at 1601 S. Western Ave. in Chicago.

"What's Japan got to do with it?" Well, for import-export intermodal in the time period referenced, just about everything.

The conversation was about intermodal through Port of Seattle, and Milwaukee’s share of that traffic. Milwaukee was the pioneer in developing intermodal at Port of Seattle, and was the underlying reason for close relationships both with Japanese shippers and with the Port itself, which preferred working with Milwaukee Road, right up until the end.

“The need for a freight office in Japan was dictated by the rising volume of import-export traffic moving over the railroad, Mr. Crippen said, and the great potential that exists for further growth in volume, especially that of containerized shipments between that country and the United States. The move lines up a larger share of this business took into account that the Milwaukee’s import export traffic handled through north Pacific Coast ports increased by 7 per cent in 1967, as compared to 1966 volume.”
“Without a doubt containerization is a fast-growing trend,” Mr. Crippen said, “as well as one of the most significant, with long-ranging implications for ocean shipping, railroads, and others in transportation. It is moving so fast that we have to stay absolutely current with developments considering that we already handle a substantial volume of containerized import export traffic.” Milwaukee Road Magazine, January-February, 1968.

“One of the first container movements directly from Japan to Minneapolis arrives at Lyons Food Products ... via Milwaukee Road as a piggyback shipment. The Japanese government, through the Japan Container Association, arranged for the movement ... in connection with establishing procedures for handling containerized freight.” Milwaukee Road Magazine, September -October, 1968.

“A camera crew of Iwanami Productions, Tokyo Japan shoots scenes of container handling methods at Piggback Park, the Milwaukee Road trailer-on-flatcar facility at Bensenville, Illinois, for a documentary film produced by K-Line (Kawasaki Kaisen Kiasha Ltd.). The film, intended mainly for showing to Japanese shippers, demonstrates the container concept of moving cargo between the Far East and the United States. Milwaukee Road Magazine, November-December, 1969.

“This is a view of the Milwaukee Road’s newly expanded Stacy Street Intermodal Yard adjacent to the Seattle Waterfront that went into service in October. ... The principal reason ... was the sharp upturn in the railroad’s import-export container traffic. As anticipated, this traffic showed a 100% gain during the first nine months of 1970 over the comparable period in 1969. ... The efficiency and location of the facility should help Milwaukee maintain its leadership in the long haul traffic to and from North Pacific Coast ports.” Milwaukee Road Magazine. November – December, 1970.

Container Traffic through Port of Seattle.
Thousands TEU:
1965:
1966: 0
1967: 0
1968: 21
1969: 36
1970: 85
1971: 96
1972: 138
1973: 195
1974: 210

“Until 1971, APL, Sea-Land and Japan Six Lines enjoyed a virtual monopoly on container traffic through the Port.” [“Seattle Container Traffic History,” Port of Seattle, Dept. of Planning and Research, 1976, p. 23].

[Anonymous]

So Ken,

You don't buy the likelyhood that if Milwaukee PCE didn't get ripped out due to political incompetence, BN ends up like Penn Central? Got news for you buddy, BN absolutely needed the PCE to be gone, or they would not have made it. What's so hard for you to comprehend about that?

BN was and is a cancer, albeit a cancer on the Northern Tier, and one that materialized after the PCE was torn out, with the brunt of the captive shipper rates being matastisized there. You need to be more judicious in the way you structure your wording.

[Anonymous]

Is there any empirical evidence that Milw actually had "76%" of Seattle Port traffic?

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cornmaze

Is there any empirical evidence that Milw actually had "76%" of Seattle Port traffic?

Well, they probably did. It's big "so what" and another one of those totally meaningless statistics Sol looks up in a continuing futile effort to prove two things: 1) The Milwaukee was viable despite the fact that it went banckrupt three times in 75 years, 2) He knows and understands transportation.

Notice that we have not been informed, unless he's typing it now, 76% of what. 76% of of tons? 76% of revenue? He hasn't said.

Both Seattle and Tacoma were derilict ports in decline before the containership arrived circa 1970. By the late 1950's cargo was declining and only six Seattle piers were in part-time use for general cargo. Most of its piers had been built to accomodate sailing ships. All this, despite the magical presence of the Milwaukee Road - which obviously wasn't doing the ports of Seattle and Tacoma much good. (Tacoma was worse off than Seattle) Source: "The Box" by Marc Levinson.

But both Seattle and Portland were, and are, major bulk grain export locations. (Bulk grain is not 'general cargo' ). Now keep in mind two things:

1) The Milwaukee Road didn't go to Portland until after the BN merger, when it got very roundabout trackage rights.

2) The BN and its predicessors had a river grade line down to Portland. They just had to basically role the grain downhill though Washington State to get it to the export terminal. To take it into Seattle, which is the only place the MILW could take it without using roundabout trackage rights or handing it off to another carrier, the railroad faced a more difficult challenge.

If Sol is talking about 76% of tonnage he could well be right on a fine point. But if he was honest and compared PNW grain exports through all ports, he'd look silly.

It's another one of his deceptions. I keep going back and forth between the belief that he is some kind of deranged Milwaukee Road zealot, and the belief that he just likes to see how many people he can fool.

As in his false claim that there was very little TOFC from Chicago to the PNW in the 1970's - then he tries to say the discussion was only about port traffic. Now just why would the discussion be limited to port traffic? Again, he doesn't say.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
And Seattle/Tacoma became major container ports because of their efficent rail service inland. This rail service was provided by the BN and UP.

QUOTE: Originally quoted by greyhounds
As in his false claim that there was very little TOFC from Chicago to the PNW in the 1970's - then he tries to say the discussion was only about port traffic. Now just why would the discussion be limited to port traffic? Again, he doesn't say.

Somebody has a problem here in terms of confusing overal intermodal traffic, domestic and foreign, with the specific discussion of Port of Seattle which, as a Port, handled the foreign.

For the record: No one said little TOFC Chicago to PNW. Someone did actually say little westbound revenue container into Port of Seattle. The Port of Seattle is not the PNW.

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
If Sol is talking about 76% of tonnage he could well be right on a fine point. But if he was honest and compared PNW grain exports through all ports, he'd look silly.

I also see we are now talking about grain traffic. I am guessing the subject has changed again. I am guessing someone feels a need to do so.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cornmaze

Is there any empirical evidence that Milw actually had "76%" of Seattle Port traffic?

Well, if greyhounds concedes "they probably did, so what?" you can just about bet he looked everywhere he could and found that it was true. His admission is a sure sign of the apocalypse.

At the time, that kind of information was proprietary. Port of Seattle could not publish it. So, it is impossible to cite a contemporary published source.

However, Hank Levenger, Port Manager, made very sure that we were "aware" of such infomation.

During my discussions with Port of Seattle in 1978 I saw those statistics, could not copy them. I am sure Bill Brodsky was made aware through similar discussions. I have discussed this with a UP traffic manager of the era, and while I guess we did not discuss the specific percentage, he has not brought to my attention any information from the UP perspective that would disagree. Rather, on the whole, UP saw the Milwaukee as a successful competitor for traffic. While this is contrary to greyhounds, I have a greater respect for a UP traffic official on UP's perspective than I do greyhound's continuing baseless allegations about UP's position which, as near as I can tell, he simply makes up.

To "test" the information, it was recited in an article in a 2001 CTC Board article. You would note I was a specific cited source. If any knowledgeable person reading the article had any dispute or information to the contrary, that was an opportunity to step forward with a documented challenge.

None did.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by cornmaze

Is there any empirical evidence that Milw actually had "76%" of Seattle Port traffic?

Well, if greyhounds concedes "they probably did, so what?" you can just about bet he looked everywhere he could and found that it was true. His admission is a sure sign of the apocalypse.

At the time, that kind of information was proprietary. Port of Seattle could not publish it. So, it is impossible to cite a contemporary published source.

However, Hank Levenger, Port Manager, made very sure that we were "aware" of such infomation.

During my discussions with Port of Seattle in 1978 I saw those statistics, could not copy them. I am sure Bill Brodsky was made aware through similar discussions. I have discussed this with a UP traffic manager of the era, and while I guess we did not discuss the specific percentage, he has not brought to my attention any information from the UP perspective that would disagree. Rather, on the whole, UP saw the Milwaukee as a successful competitor for traffic. While this is contrary to greyhounds, I have a greater respect for a UP traffic official on UP's perspective than I do greyhound's continuing baseless allegations about UP's position which, as near as I can tell, he simply makes up.

To "test" the information, it was recited in an article in a 2001 CTC Board article. You would note I was a specific cited source. If any knowledgeable person reading the article had any dispute or information to the contrary, that was an opportunity to step forward with a documented challenge.

None did.

Well, I didn't look 'everywhere', or 'anywhere' for that matter. Because it is of absolutely zero significance as to what the Milwaukee's share of Seattle port traffic was 30 years ago. And I've got better things to do than try to research meaningless data.

All, I said was "if they did, so what". Sol has extrapolated that, with no foundation in reason or fact, to falsely claim that I looked "about everywhere". He makes stuff up.

And he still hasn't told us 76% of what - tons, money, what? He refuses to say.

And he still hasn't provided me with the phone number he offered to check one of his asinine asertions.

[MichaelSol]

What is clear is that you have, once again, wound yourself up into an apparently unending venal tirade on something you know nothing about, laced with name calling, contradictory statements, constantly changing subjects, completely unsupported allegations and no, after you refused my specific offer of Fred Simpson's background materials, including sworn affidavits, on the topic which in fact directly addressed my contentions, I would no more give you his phone number so that you can insult him to his face, than I would give you the time of day.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol
I have discussed this with a UP traffic manager of the era, and while I guess we did not discuss the specific percentage, he has not brought to my attention any information from the UP perspective that would disagree. Rather, on the whole, UP saw the Milwaukee as a successful competitor for traffic.

I see from my correspondence file that we had in fact discussed that very contention, as well as the other contentions regarding Milwaukee's traffic position at the Ports and its ability to handle to handle that traffic more efficiently than BN.

I would say this. The strength of the PCE as a long haul traffic source is documented. Those were big dollars coming out of the Ports of Seattle, Tacoma and Portland into Milwaukee Road coffers. Fred Simpson and Bill Brodsky were not only experienced railroad planners and executive officers, but their conclusions correlate precisely with not only my experience and documentation on the matter, but that of a well-known former UP traffic officer familiar with the situation. I would say the four of us have virtually identical observations, and draw virtually identical conclusions.

Most of these matters have been discussed specifically in published sources offering an opportunity for refutation if information existed to the contrary. Not a single knowledgeable person -- and there had to be more than a few -- has ever stepped forward to contest a single one of these statements.

There is a point in any discussion when the strength of the proof simply has to prevail. As I have said to greyhounds on other threads, and now have to repeat again, calling me a bunch of names doesn't change the facts. Doesn't do much for the conversation either way.

Between 1960 and 1974, traffic grew 207% on the Milwaukee Road's Pacific Extension. During that time period, while Class 1 railroad traffic was generally in decline, that represented extraordinary growth for a U.S. railroad. And it represented a broad spectrum of traffic: Milwaukee's strong intermodal component, import\export, auto traffic which Milwaukee dominated, forest products, grain, strong interchange with SP and with BCE.

The fact is that Milwaukee Road built west to get long haul traffic and built directly into the two Puget Sound ports to do just that and came to dominate rail traffic through those ports. It built the shortest line across Washington State, with the most favorable grades for the heavier eastbound traffic. It acquired a state-wide market share comparable to either GN or NP, with fewer miles of track and fewer employees.

This represented an economic efficiency that has been little remarked on, but undoubtedly underscored why every study ever done showed that the PCE contributed nearly twice as much per revenue dollar to net profit as the eastern part of the system, that this was a virtual constant from its inception and, after 1970, became the only profitable part of the system.

[wallyworld]

Michael Sol
This is a question that is based on my ignorance of economic realities. If port traffic growth and it's Eastward movement in relation to capacity on existing lines, more specifically the limits of adding capacity on existing lines, would it make sense ala DME to rebuild a portion of the PCE based on its advantages and has this ever been considered?

[nanaimo73]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

It built the shortest line across Washington State, with the most favorable grades for the heavier eastbound traffic.

Would "heavier eastbound traffic" refer to only after the March 23, 1971 entry into Portland ?
When the line was built, would the westbound traffic have been heavier ?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

It built the shortest line across Washington State, with the most favorable grades for the heavier eastbound traffic.

Would "heavier eastbound traffic" refer to only after the March 23, 1971 entry into Portland ?
When the line was built, would the westbound traffic have been heavier ?

I don't recall UP at the moment, but historically, NP, GN and MILW all carried about twice as much eastbound as westbound. Substantially higher in any case. I have never seen tonnage figures that showed otherwise at any point. Not to say there might not have been something like that in, say, the 1890s, but I have not seen it at any point in time after 1910. Might have expected it after the Panama Canal opened, but that seems to have hurt NP and GN in both directions, so the relative proportions stayed the same.

But for all three railroads, the standard pattern was in favor of heavier eastbound traffic.

After 1970, Milwaukee's westbound traffic very nearly equalized with its eastbound traffic, because of the impact of Gateway conditions enabling Milwaukee to carry its westbound transcontinental traffic to Gateways rather than turnover at Minnesota Terminals, and nothwithstanding the addition of substantial eastbound traffic from the Portland Gateway and Portland Port access.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by wallyworld

Michael Sol
This is a question that is based on my ignorance of economic realities. If port traffic growth and it's Eastward movement in relation to capacity on existing lines, more specifically the limits of adding capacity on existing lines, would it make sense ala DME to rebuild a portion of the PCE based on its advantages and has this ever been considered?

Coal traffic was one of the major considerations surrounding discussions of the PCE at the time of the reorganization. Gateways were the big deal on the west end, but during that same time, Milwaukee and BN had both enjoyed substantial coal traffic growth out of Eastern Montana and elsewhere. One of Milwaukee Road's biggest single private investors bought into the company at that time, based on his perception (and the recommendation of then-Energy Secretary Schlesinger) that Milwaukee Road was one of the best located railroads for exploiting coal development.

But, I would have to plead ignorance of the DME and how that might have played into the PCE. I just haven't followed it in enough detail to have an informed opinion one way or another.

[nanaimo73]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

But for all three railroads, the standard pattern was in favor of heavier eastbound traffic.

What a difference a border makes. CN and CP have always, and probably always will, haul more westbound. The Spokane International route should be the same.

I'm glad we always run a trade surplus. Canadians are just amazed Americans can run a $700 billion trade deficit, and treat it with apparent apathy.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

I'm glad we always run a trade surplus.

It's all that Canadian lumber, I tell you![:D]

[wallyworld]

I see long strings of it on the CN (former Soo) southbound. Lots of grain as well.
The amount of 24 hour a day traffic is amazing. Alot of triple headed freights.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
And Seattle/Tacoma became major container ports because of their efficent rail service inland. This rail service was provided by the BN and UP.

QUOTE: Originally quoted by greyhounds
As in his false claim that there was very little TOFC from Chicago to the PNW in the 1970's - then he tries to say the discussion was only about port traffic. Now just why would the discussion be limited to port traffic? Again, he doesn't say.

Somebody has a problem here in terms of confusing overal intermodal traffic, domestic and foreign, with the specific discussion of Port of Seattle which, as a Port, handled the foreign.

For the record: No one said little TOFC Chicago to PNW. Someone did actually say little westbound revenue container into Port of Seattle. The Port of Seattle is not the PNW.

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
If Sol is talking about 76% of tonnage he could well be right on a fine point. But if he was honest and compared PNW grain exports through all ports, he'd look silly.

I also see we are now talking about grain traffic. I am guessing the subject has changed again. I am guessing someone feels a need to do so.

Yes, somebody said there was little TOFC to the Pacific Northwest. You did.

On May 17th, 2006:

QUOTE: Well, this is typical. My point was specifically intermodal. Not a lot of westbound intermodal into Port of Seattle in those days. But, to you it suddenly became "freight generating." In 1974, those were two different things. There is no way to confuse my remarks unless you intend to.

This one was not directed at me.

And also on May 17th, 2006 you said:

QUOTE: Well, the TOFC/COFC manager at Milwaukee is puzzling over this one, for Milwaukee or any other railroad.

Not much originating in Chicago. Japan just didn't seem to be doing much TOFC/COFC importing.

Odd. Ken Strawbridge thinks they did.

This one was obviously directed at me.

Why can't you for once be honest? By the mid 70's a huge intermodal buiness had deveoped between Chicago and the Pacific Northwest. And Chicago did generate a tremendous amount of intermodal freight. The fact that you don't know this says a lot about you. And what it says isn't good.

The BN and UP were able to participate in this growth business with their dedicated intermodal trains -- #3 (on the BN) and "North Coast Van" (on the UP). The pathetic Milwaukee Road couldn't run a dedicated intermodal service and it could only participate in this businiss growth to a very small extent.

Now you may say you were only talking about "port" business, but that would be silly. (never stopped you before.) The railroads terminated the loads at their PNW intermodal facilities. Whether the load went on to Japan or was delivered locally made no difference to them.

And as for, are "we talking about grain traffic now"? Well, you won't say. You just throw out meaningless numbers about percentages of port traffic, but you refuse to say percentages of what. If you'd say something like, "in 1970 the derilect, malignant Milwaukee Road had 76% of the 2,000 tons of frozen chicken livers that moved through the Port of Seattle", you might be saying something meaningful.

But you just say somethig like they had 76%. Well, 76% of WHAT? You don't say, and you refuse to say, probably because you don't know.

If the MILW had 100% of the export wheat buisness to Seattle and the BN/UP split 90% of the intermodal - they'd be ahead of the MILW in revenue. It would have been long haul intermodal with the equipment moving under revenue load in both directions to a significant extent. The wheat would be shorter hauls and the cars for sure returned empty. The Milwaukee could have had 76% of the tonnage, but only 10% of the revenue.

That's not a winning situation for the old MILW - but then they did die didnt' they.

You just throw out numbers with no meaning or context. I'll ask you again, since you did cite percentages by railroad of Seattle Port Traffic as 'factual". Percentages of what Mr. Sol? I don't think you know.

Ken Strawbridge

[nanaimo73]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

I'm glad we always run a trade surplus.

It's all that Canadian lumber, I tell you![:D]

You need good wood to build sturdy houses for those Dakota winters. Southern Pine just won't do.[;)]

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
And Seattle/Tacoma became major container ports because of their efficent rail service inland. This rail service was provided by the BN and UP.

QUOTE: Originally quoted by greyhounds
As in his false claim that there was very little TOFC from Chicago to the PNW in the 1970's - then he tries to say the discussion was only about port traffic. Now just why would the discussion be limited to port traffic? Again, he doesn't say.

Somebody has a problem here in terms of confusing overal intermodal traffic, domestic and foreign, with the specific discussion of Port of Seattle which, as a Port, handled the foreign.

For the record: No one said little TOFC Chicago to PNW. Someone did actually say little westbound revenue container into Port of Seattle. The Port of Seattle is not the PNW.

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
If Sol is talking about 76% of tonnage he could well be right on a fine point. But if he was honest and compared PNW grain exports through all ports, he'd look silly.

I also see we are now talking about grain traffic. I am guessing the subject has changed again. I am guessing someone feels a need to do so.

Yes, somebody said there was little TOFC to the Pacific Northwest. You did.

Well, this is starting to be the "when I said Milwaukee corporate entity, I meant Milwaukee reporting mark" stuff all over again. You can try and change your own words. Don't change mine.

Indeed, you then quote me, wherein I specifically say "into Port of Seattle." Can't be any clearer.

QUOTE: Well, this is typical. My point was specifically intermodal. Not a lot of westbound intermodal into Port of Seattle in those days. But, to you it suddenly became "freight generating." In 1974, those were two different things. There is no way to confuse my remarks unless you intend to.

QUOTE: Originally by MichaelSolWell, the TOFC/COFC manager at Milwaukee is puzzling over this one, for Milwaukee or any other railroad.

Not much originating in Chicago. Japan just didn't seem to be doing much TOFC/COFC importing.

Odd. Ken Strawbridge thinks they did.

QUOTE: Ken Strawbridge
This one was obviously directed at me.

Why can't you for once be honest? By the mid 70's a huge intermodal buiness had deveoped between Chicago and the Pacific Northwest. And Chicago did generate a tremendous amount of intermodal freight. The fact that you don't know this says a lot about you. And what it says isn't good.

This is simply dishonesty. I am clearly talking about Port of Seattle, and there wasn't much intermodal traffic back through it to Japan from Chicago or anywhere else through POS.

QUOTE: Ken StrawbridgeNow you may say you were only talking about "port" business, but that would be silly. (never stopped you before.) The railroads terminated the loads at their PNW intermodal facilities. Whether the load went on to Japan or was delivered locally made no difference to them.

Well, then I would have said Stacy Street Yard. But I didn't. And talk about silly. MILW would have hauled the domestic to the Port of Seattle, then back to Stacy Street?

The problem seems to be, when I said Port of Seattle, you either didn't understand that, or it didn't fit anything you could invent an argument about.

The conversation was about Port of Seattle. You keep trying to change the topic to all railroads through all intermodal facilities. But, no one made any claims about all intermodal throughout the entire Pacific Northwest. It is one of your typical evasions of the topic so that you can pretend to prove something.

MILW had 76% of all POS traffic. Neither Brodsky nor myself ever said revenue; you created that mystery all by yourself. MILW had 50% of the container traffic. That has also been specifically stated.

Indeed, you know very well that it would be extremely difficult to pry the revenue information out of other railroads to determine a revenue percentage. Maybe you don't, I don't know. But carloads can be counted.

You found a book, "The Box" and now pretend to be an expert on Port of Seattle and the Pacific Northwest. You claim not to have used MILW, but know all about that too. Now I see you think you've got the wheat rates of that era figured out as well and seem to suggest it was lower revenue than container.

It is true MILW was the primary carrier to Pier 86, Cargill, (BN did the switch there).

MILW Seattle traffic manager Doug Nighswonger: "We did have a tremendous amount of grain coming west for export. Most if not all the wheat grown west of Mobridge came west. Most of it went to Seattle and most of the balance went to Tacoma. Some went to the port of Longview but I do not recall very much going though Kalama and Portland, even though we had rate to go there."

[MichaelSol]

Well, since wheat was brought up as something somehow connected to container traffic, and it is a Milwaukee thread, here's the wheat business in 1977 from a study I did back in the day:

1) Continental Grain, 1,037 carloads through Longview, and 3,541 carloads
through Tacoma.
2) Northern Pacific Grain shipped 800 carloads through Kalama.
3) Cargill, Midwest points, 1,153 carloads over Milwaukee to Portland, and
2,087 carloads to Pier 86 in Seattle.
4) Albers Milling to Portland, 219 carloads.
5) Benson Quinn 87 carloads to Portland
6) Bunge Corp to Portland 439 carloads
7) Columbia Grain to Portland 323 carloads
8) Louis Dreyfus, 666 carloads to Portland
9) FUGTA, 130 carloads Portland
10) Great Western Malting, Vancouver WA 351 carloads.
11) Mayflower, Portland, 98 carloads
12) Pillsbury, Portland 1 carload (85 previous year)
13) Terminal Flour, Portland, 134 carloads
14) United Grain, Portland, 1054 carloads
15) Wilbur Ellis Co. Portland, 21 carloads,
16) Centennial Mills, Portland 139 carloads
17) Cougar Elevator Co. Seattle 107 carloads 12,387
18) Farmer's Coop NML to Seattle 55 carloads
19) Farmers Coop NML to Seattle 296 carloads
20) Cargill, NML to Seattle 382 carloads
21) Cargill, Harlowton to Seattle 197 carloads
22) Eiseman Seed Co,. Fairfield MT 417 carloads
23) Teton Grain, Fairfield 65 carloads
24) Equity Coop, Geraldine, 269 carloads
25) Farmers Union, Fairfield, Lewistown, Winifred, Three Forks 768
carloads
26) Coast Trading, Geraldine/Agawam to Portland, 285 carloads
27) Nat Farmers Org Geraldine 110 carloads
28) Peavey, Geraldine, Lewistown, Moore 344 carloads
29) Conagra, Lewistown/Great Falls, 454 carloads
30) General Mills, Great Falls/Choteau 463 carloads
31) Western Grain, Great Falls 836 carloads
32) Garneil Elevator, Garneil MT 62 carloads
33) Cargill, Danvers, MT to Seattle, 69 carloads
34) Fisher Flour Mills, Seattle 1,410 carloads
35) Rockford Grain, Worley ID, 255 carloads
36) Berger & Plate, Worley/Spokane, 94 carloads
37) Coast Trading, Missoula to Portland 77 carloads (down from 213)
38) Columbia Grain, 211 cars
39) Lamont Grain Growers, 36 carloads
40) Rosalia Grain, Pine City, 65 carloads
41) Western Farmers Assoc. to Tacoma and Seattle, 1,061 carloads
42) Ritzville Elevator, 231 carloads
43) Western Grain, Malden, 314 carloads
44) Wolf Kill, Moses Lake, 89 carloads
45) Kittitas Farm Storage, 90 carloads
46) Gearhart Bros. Beverly/Othello, 51 carloads
47) Odessa Union Warehouse, 837 carloads
48) Odessa Trading Co., 967 carloads

[Station Revenue Report, Office of Financial Vice President, Milwaukee Road, waybill study, BAH survey].

Traffic available to MILW but not carried for lack of equipment:

8,222 carloadings Cedar Rapids, Mankato, Miles City, Great Falls to "West
Coast Ports".
1,200 car Minnesota movement corn and oats to Seattle
4,331 carloads SD to Washington state ports.
900 carloads intermodal grain movement, Great Falls to Malden, then to
barge service.
316 carloads, Minnesota and Iowa to Seattle, Tacoma and Portland.

Appendix F1,F2, Vol III, Confidential Traffic Report., BAH

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

I'm glad we always run a trade surplus.

It's all that Canadian lumber, I tell you![:D]

You need good wood to build sturdy houses for those Dakota winters. Southern Pine just won't do.[;)]

You know why they call it Southern Pine? Because IT GROWS IN THE SOUTH AKA DIXIE!

Sorry to yell like that, but it seems some of those GWN lumber barons are telling the WTO that all the US grows is that wimpy Southern Pine. For the record, most of the timber grown in the PMW is the same stuff BC grows. The only difference is that you guys harvest most of yours, while we destructively burn most of ours.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Traffic available to MILW but not carried for lack of equipment:

900 carloads intermodal grain movement, Great Falls to Malden, then to
barge service.

Michael,

What was the "barge service" mentioned here? If the rail haul terminated in Malden, I assume the containers(?) were to be trucked to a barge port. Which one, Lewiston or Pasco (the two operating container on barge ports at the time)?

If the rail haul was to terminate in Malden, I assume the truck move would be to Lewiston. Otherwise, if the barge terminus was Pasco, wouldn't the rail move go as far as Othello?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Traffic available to MILW but not carried for lack of equipment:

900 carloads intermodal grain movement, Great Falls to Malden, then to
barge service.

Michael,

What was the "barge service" mentioned here? If the rail haul terminated in Malden, I assume the containers(?) were to be trucked to a barge port. Which one, Lewiston or Pasco (the two operating container on barge ports at the time)?

If the rail haul was to terminate in Malden, I assume the truck move would be to Lewiston. Otherwise, if the barge terminus was Pasco, wouldn't the rail move go as far as Othello?

Can't really say. To me it seemed to make more sense to go to Marengo and switch to UP to Portland (the shortest Chicago/Portland route by the way). This was from BAH's shipper survey, and while the surveys were quite detailed, this was from the summary given to Stanley Hillman.

The shipper was shipping Egyptian Wheat I believe. A specialty wheat. By coincidence one of my kids did an interview with him a few weeks ago.

Best regards, Michael Sol