What happen to Milwaukee Road?

63915 views

622 replies

MichaelSol

Member since
October 2004
3,190 posts

Posted by MichaelSol on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 3:45 PM

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
1) The grain rates are lower, much lower, today than they were 30 years ago with the Milwuakee in place.

Wheat rates Great Falls to Portland in 1980, the last year the Milwaukee was in place, were about $1600 per carload.

On a price per ton-mile basis, farm products in general have declined by 43.3% (adjusted for inflation) through 1997, which happens to be last date used in the paper I am referring to, Jerry Elig, "Railroad Deregulation and Consumer Welfare," Journal of Regulatory Economics, 21:2, pp. 143-167 (2002).

If the price charged to move wheat was "much, much" lower today than in 1980, it would have followed the pattern of the industry, and a 100 ton covered hopper carload of wheat could be transported from Great Falls to Portland for an inflation adjusted price of $1,616 (1997).

Instead, that carload cost about $2,700 to ship in 1997. Today, it costs $3,300.

The cost to the railroad to provide the service is "much, much lower" than it was in 1980, but in this instance the price charged to the shipper is not.

Prices charged to shippers in general declined by 46.4%, for coal, 55.7%, and declined for intermodal, 48.1%. For the grain shipper in Great Falls, the cost to ship by rail has decreased by only 5%, or compared to the general decline in rates which presumably reflects production efficiencies obtained by the railroads during the period of time, increased by 52% compared to rail rates in general.

Succinctly, if the rates charged today to the Great Falls wheat shipper reflected the inflation adjusted productivity index of rates, then that shipper would be paying $1871, today, to ship a carload of wheat. That rate would reflect the fact that the Milwaukee Road served Great Falls. The fact is, the Milwaukee does not serve Great Falls and that shipper pays, instead, $3300.

Murphy Siding

Member since
May 2005
From: S.E. South Dakota
13,569 posts

Posted by Murphy Siding on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 10:04 AM

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Milwaukee's economic strength was as a transcontinental railroad. It served key ports/gateways on the east end, and ran to key ports/gateways on the west end. From a railroad planner's standpoint, it was close to an ideal configuration. The PCE was the part that completed the whole, a 2600 mile mainline from Louisville to Portland. And that part made money, good money. It was the overbuilt, short haul money pit in the middle that sunk the whole thing, and it didn't matter whether that part was called the Milwaukee, The North Western, the Rock Island, the Illinois Central or the Burlington. It was the same money pit. They all suffered the same problems at a key point in time: lack of money to continue operations and lack of capital to regain economic viability.

Well said. I believe you could add *declining business* to the list of woes relative to the "money pit" part, as well.

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

MichaelSol

Member since
October 2004
3,190 posts

Posted by MichaelSol on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 9:49 AM

Milwaukee's economic strength was as a transcontinental railroad. It served key ports/gateways on the east end, and ran to key ports/gateways on the west end. From a railroad planner's standpoint, it was close to an ideal configuration. The PCE was the part that completed the whole, a 2600 mile mainline from Louisville to Portland. And that part made money, good money. It was the overbuilt, short haul money pit in the middle that sunk the whole thing, and it didn't matter whether that part was called the Milwaukee, The North Western, the Rock Island, the Illinois Central or the Burlington. It was the same money pit. They all suffered the same problems at a key point in time: lack of money to continue operations and lack of capital to regain economic viability.

Anonymous

Member since
April 2003
305,205 posts

Posted by Anonymous on Monday, May 29, 2006 7:26 PM

QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
[

. And the Chicago-Twin Cities line is also a part of the PCE in that it was part of that trancon route. Yes, the PCE survives intact east of Miles City!

No the Chicago-Twin cities in not part of the PCE. The PCE or pacific coast EXTENSION was built west of the twin cities, and therfore is not included in it.

Bert

C'mon, Bert. Put on your thinking cap for a minute. Why was/is the PCE such a vital asset? Because it is THE TRANSCON. If the PCE wasn't the transcon, it wouldn't have any value beyond the description *given* by greyhounds. What value would it have had if it only ran from Seattle to the Twin Cities? Milwaukee would have had to pass off it's transcon traffic to either one of the Hill lines or one of the Canadian subsidiaries, thereby making it irrelevent, or to the CNW who already had the UP bridge traffic, thus the spector of playing second fiddle to UP when CNW was called up. It had to run from Seattle to at least Chicago to be "independently" viable.

You can split hairs all you want regarding official designations, but for all intents and purposes the PCE ran from Chicago to Seattle.

Reply
Edit

Anonymous

Member since
April 2003
305,205 posts

Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, May 27, 2006 6:56 PM

The original line does not extend quite to Miles City. The Milwaukee line was mostly on the north side of the Yellowstone River from Miles City to Terry while the Burlington Northern was on the south side. The portion of the line from Terry to Miles City was abandoned which eliminated two big bridges over the Yellowstone River.

Larry

Reply
Edit

nanaimo73

Member since
April 2005
From: Nanaimo BC Canada
4,117 posts

Posted by nanaimo73 on Saturday, May 27, 2006 6:35 PM

Yes They had 5 of them, without dynamic brakes (Chicago-Omaha service) that were painted in UP colors at first. All 5 were scrapped. They were numbered 1 to 5
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/locoList.aspx?id=MILW

Dale

Anonymous

Member since
April 2003
305,205 posts

Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, May 27, 2006 6:15 PM

To change the subject for a second and let you guys cool down. Did the MILW ever own any FP45's?????
TIA .

Reply
Edit

n012944

Member since
August 2004
From: The 17th hole at TPC
2,283 posts

Posted by n012944 on Saturday, May 27, 2006 1:32 PM

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
[

. And the Chicago-Twin Cities line is also a part of the PCE in that it was part of that trancon route. Yes, the PCE survives intact east of Miles City!

No the Chicago-Twin cities in not part of the PCE. The PCE or pacific coast EXTENSION was built west of the twin cities, and therfore is not included in it.

Bert

An "expensive model collector"

Anonymous

Member since
April 2003
305,205 posts

Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, May 27, 2006 1:04 PM

More proof that the statement "capacity is just fine" is just plain nonsensical:

http://www.railwayage.com/A/feature1.html

And remember, whatever grain shipping problems are felt by the US on average, are may times worse in captive country.

Reply
Edit

Anonymous

Member since
April 2003
305,205 posts

Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, May 27, 2006 12:52 PM

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

As of 2006, parts (easten parts) of the Milwaukee remain viable. The CP depends on the Chicago-Twin Cities line, the IC&E operates midwest lines, and the BNSFoperates a chunk of ex-MILW trackage in South Dakota. But nobody was able to "save" the PCE because it had no economic viability.

Well, the "ex-MILW trackage in South Dakota" you mention IS a part of the PCE, and was only saved because the State of South Dakota was smart enough to purchase it, otherwise it would have ended up a victim as well. And the Chicago-Twin Cities line is also a part of the PCE in that it was part of that trancon route. Yes, the PCE survives intact east of Miles City!

And the only reason the IC&E routes were saved is that they were the part of the Milwaukee kept after the PCE retrenchment, thus they lasted until after Staggers allowed the pawning off of unwanted trackage by the Class I's to shortline and regional opertators. The owners and operators of the MRL today would have gladly bought the entire PCE west of the Twin Cities had that opportunity availed itself, but the regulatory structure pre-Staggers did not favor that.

If the PCE could have survived past Staggers in an ongoing operational capacity (basically a few years more), it would still be in operation today. The existance of the MRL and the ambitions of the Washington Group would have guaranteed that.

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73
Would you say if the PCE was in place from Seattle and Portland to the Twin Cities under an independant owner today, that it would now be viable ?

Yes, under the umbrella of the Washington Group. The irony of that is, if the MRL people had instead bought the PCE, the ex-NP lines might be rail trails today! Of course, those NP bonds from yore might have forced the BN to keep those lines, thus contributing to an eventual BN bankruptcy! The point is, I'm not sure the MRL folks would have also bought the NP lines had they been offered up by BN, if indeed they had gotten control of the PCE. Mr. Sol might have some insight into that speculation.

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
No, I'm convinced it would still be just execess capacity.

I'll cite two factors that conclusively indicate that there is adequate capacity today and into the near future:

1) The grain rates are lower, much lower, today than they were 30 years ago with the Milwuakee in place. If there was a true capacity problem that wouldn't be the case. If the demand approached available supply you'd see those prices go up, now down.

Not really. What you have to calculate is the percentage of farmers' profits being eaten up by transportation costs, which is really the only relavent measure. Under that measure, transporation costs have increased, and most of that increase is due to the captive shipper rates being forced onto Montana farmers. With another railroad competing for grain hauling in Montana, that cost as a percentage of gross income lost falls from nearly 50% to around 15%. And carload rates have gone up dramatically, so that statement if patentaly false.

QUOTE: 2) Seattle and Tacoma are fast growing container ports. This growth is being handled by the current rail network. It will always be less expensive to add capacity to the BNSF lines than to operate an entire new route. (and hopefully, someday, the UP will get its act together.)

Less expensive for who? Adding capacity is a cost borne by BNSF and/or UP. Adding a new railroad is a cost borne by whatever entity or entities engage in that prospect. And you seem to forget that railcar deliveries are not keeping up with requests. Service levels are down dramatically all over the US, not just Montana elevators.

You can argue all you want about current capacity being adaquate. That may be true for BNSF, and that is only true east of Sandpoint ID with the two lines diverging to three diverging into five. The real problem exists twofold:

1. The need for capacity from the shippers perspective is for competitive capacity. All the capacity additions by BNSF and UP will not aleviate the monopolistic rate setting that is harming US producers.

2. If your only concern is BNSF and not the needs of the rail shipper community, even then you have the problem of bottlenecks, a problem created by the abandonment of mainline trackage, further compounded by the fact that the best alignments sometimes were abandoned in favor of lesser aligments. BNSF's former railroads had two mainlines from Sandpoint to Spokane, now there is just one. It is a bottleneck, and BNSF does not have the money to fix it. Which might explain why today's railroads are begging the feds for financial aid.

QUOTE:
Throw in the domestic business (UPS, LTL, other intermodal, chemicals, etc.) and basically, that's the market between the Twin Cities and Puget sound. It's being handled just fine now. And it's growth is being handled just fine now.

NO, it isn't. This is a fantasy of yours, not in line with the reality of service complaints, lost domestic production, continued truckload growth, etc.

Tell me, why is it that shippers are complaining about railroads, but not truckers and bargelines? The answer is obvious - THERE IS A REAL ONGOING SHORTAGE OF COMPETITIVE RAILROAD CAPACITY. THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF TRUCK AND BARGE COMPETITIVE CAPACITY!

Sorry to yell like that, but if that's what it takes to get it through your thick head.......

Reply
Edit

n012944

Member since
August 2004
From: The 17th hole at TPC
2,283 posts

Posted by n012944 on Saturday, May 27, 2006 12:09 PM

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
[br Frankly, if it weren't for the elimination of the PCE, BN may not have had the necessary income to stave off a bankruptcy of it's own.

I agree that's a possibility. Which makes a good arguement as to why the PCE had to die.

With it, you might have had two banckrupt railroads. Two broken down streaks of rust instead of one good, efficient system.

That's FM's irrationality. That's what he seems to want.

Ken Strawbridge

I think you are wrong on that one. It was not the PCE elimation that saved the BN. It was Powder River coal and the passage of the clean air act, which made burning western coal nessesary if you did not want to install expensive scrubbers. Sure the extra revenue from the PCE was nice, but it was not the diffenece maker.

Bert

An "expensive model collector"

greyhounds

Member since
August 2003
From: Antioch, IL
4,371 posts

Posted by greyhounds on Saturday, May 27, 2006 11:59 AM

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
[br Frankly, if it weren't for the elimination of the PCE, BN may not have had the necessary income to stave off a bankruptcy of it's own.

I agree that's a possibility. Which makes a good arguement as to why the PCE had to die.

With it, you might have had two banckrupt railroads. Two broken down streaks of rust instead of one good, efficient system.

That's FM's irrationality. That's what he seems to want.

Ken Strawbridge

"By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that.

greyhounds

Member since
August 2003
From: Antioch, IL
4,371 posts

Posted by greyhounds on Saturday, May 27, 2006 11:51 AM

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

As of 2006, parts (easten parts) of the Milwaukee remain viable. The CP depends on the Chicago-Twin Cities line, the IC&E operates midwest lines, and the BNSFoperates a chunk of ex-MILW trackage in South Dakota. But nobody was able to "save" the PCE because it had no economic viability.

Would you say if the PCE was in place from Seattle and Portland to the Twin Cities under an independant owner today, that it would now be viable ?

No, I'm convinced it would still be just execess capacity.

I'll cite two factors that conclusively indicate that there is adequate capacity today and into the near future:

1) The grain rates are lower, much lower, today than they were 30 years ago with the Milwuakee in place. If there was a true capacity problem that wouldn't be the case. If the demand approached available supply you'd see those prices go up, now down.

2) Seattle and Tacoma are fast growing container ports. This growth is being handled by the current rail network. It will always be less expensive to add capacity to the BNSF lines than to operate an entire new route. (and hopefully, someday, the UP will get its act together.)

Throw in the domestic business (UPS, LTL, other intermodal, chemicals, etc.) and basically, that's the market between the Twin Cities and Puget sound. It's being handled just fine now. And it's growth is being handled just fine now.

Again, it will always be cheaper to add capacity to the BNSF (and UP) than to operate an entirely different route.

And don't forget the CN and CP. The Canadian and US rail networks are totally integrated. Vancouver can take more containers and those railroads can deliver those boxes to Chicago.

The current capacity is doing the job just fine - another route would be excess. I don't conceed that the PCE was ever viable. I don't see how it would be viable today.

Ken Strawbridge

Anonymous

Member since
April 2003
305,205 posts

Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, May 27, 2006 11:48 AM

QUOTE: Originally posted by ValorStorm
I will say that Montana wheat growers are their own worst enemies. Lack of rail competition is a legitimate concern here. But wheat would be more expensive to ship from Montana even with better competition. Distances are just greater here. Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma wheat is much closer to its terminals and its market. (Texas and Alaska could be as big as all Canada, and Montanans would STILL have a longer school-bus ride.) And our grain storage options - compared to the prairie states - are few, small, and far between.

I take it geography is not your strong suit! Montana is closer to Portland (THE major Pacific Rim export area) than Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma, and most US hard red wheat is bound for export. What those latter three states have that Montana doesn't is a semblance of intramodal rail competition. And don't think for a moment that being a captive shipper state is irrelevent to the price grain farmers receive for their crop. Montana farmers have at least 1/3 of their profits eaten up in transportation costs.

QUOTE: I think Glendive has the only "shuttle" elevator in the state.

I think there's more. Someone mentioned Mocassin a while back, there's a shuttle facility near Billings, and I assume there are a few others. But you are right, there's not that many compared to carload elevators.

The problem with shuttle facilities is that they replace the carload facilities which were numerous and spread out accross the State. Thus the average truck haul from farm to railhead (including farm to local elevator to shuttle facility moves) has increased dramatically from about 15 miles to about 100 miles today. Thus whatever is "saved" by shuttle efficiencies is lost by having to longhaul (relatively speaking) by truck.

Now, the logical solution to this is to keep the carload elevators active, whether on a mainline or a branchline, and allow a shortline operator to distribute/collect the cars at the local elevator and deliver them to the shuttle facility. There, the cars can either be added to the shuttle consist, or (if they are 264k or below) emptied at the shuttle elevator. A 264k car is still more efficient than a 105k truck.

QUOTE: Simply put, ours is more expensive wheat. Montana farmers fight other states in an uphill battle against opportunity-cost. Big Sky Country is a good place to run "shooters." That's what BNSF wants to do here. If there were more rail options, BNSF might just let them haul the wheat.

Well, there were more rail options, and BN went to great lengths to make sure those other rail options were extinguished, and BNSF continues today to protect it's monopoly in Montana, even to the point of *purchasing* the Montana Western at an exorbinant price to prevent free interchange between UP and MRL. Frankly, if it weren't for the elimination of the PCE, BN may not have had the necessary income to stave off a bankruptcy of it's own.

Reply
Edit

n012944

Member since
August 2004
From: The 17th hole at TPC
2,283 posts

Posted by n012944 on Saturday, May 27, 2006 11:14 AM

After reading all 17 pages of this topic, I must say that it is a very interesting topic. I would like to add a few of my opinons to this,[:I]

1. If the PCE did make a profit, someone would have bought it and operatied it. You can go on all day about political theroys, but in the end someone would be operating it today. Look at the eastern end of the MILW, for the most part it is still in operation, making money for the CP.

2. As for the little joes being the greatest locomotive on the face ot the earth, the CSS&SB got rid of there 3 little joes a less then 10 years after the MILW did. They replaced them with a couple of brand new GP38's and several GP7/9's. Now the CSS&SB little joes had less miles on them, and were in better shape than the MILW joes. If they were such a great engine they would be hauling coal in northern Indinana right now. In the end, and this is one reason why Conrail got rid of the electric freight engines, is that it does not pay to have road locomtives that are captive to one area. It is better to have a SD40 that can operate anywere on the system as opposed to a joe that is held captive to 1000 mile line.[:0]

An "expensive model collector"

Murphy Siding

Member since
May 2005
From: S.E. South Dakota
13,569 posts

Posted by Murphy Siding on Saturday, May 27, 2006 9:39 AM

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo
The GN and NP permitted the MILW to build the PCE provided that the MILW turned over all traffic destined West of the Twin Cities to them that was not totally captive to the MILW.

Can you explain "permitted" in the context of this subject? I don't quite understand.

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

kenneo

Member since
December 2001
From: Upper Left Coast
1,796 posts

Posted by kenneo on Saturday, May 27, 2006 8:13 AM

ValorStorm --- The real culprit here is the price that the farmer gets for his wheat. It hasn't increased since the MILW was torn up, but the cost of moving it has -- a lot.

My dad's family owned three large properties in Montana starting in 1915 through 1930 (I still have the Patents for the properties) and Dad and GrandDad said that the land there would grow the best grains and seed crops in the uplands between the Yellowstone and Powder Rivers. But the cost of transportation just ate them alive. And until the MILW came along in 1909, it cost about twice as much more.

The joke now, is, that coal littered the ground just like stones do in New England, and it was just as troublesome. You couldn't even just heap it up and burn it because you would just set the ground on fire!!!!! So in 1931 they sold the properties -- along with the mineral rights. That proved to be several billion $$'s of [banghead][oops]

Eric

ValorStorm

Member since
March 2002
From: MRL 3rd Sub MP117 "No defects, repeat, no defects"
360 posts

Posted by ValorStorm on Saturday, May 27, 2006 5:14 AM

And there was the issue of Milwaukee Road's near-complete monopoly of northwest new car traffic. Tunnel clearances were the primary reason.

I will say that Montana wheat growers are their own worst enemies. Lack of rail competition is a legitimate concern here. But wheat would be more expensive to ship from Montana even with better competition. Distances are just greater here. Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma wheat is much closer to its terminals and its market. (Texas and Alaska could be as big as all Canada, and Montanans would STILL have a longer school-bus ride.) And our grain storage options - compared to the prairie states - are few, small, and far between. I think Glendive has the only "shuttle" elevator in the state.

Simply put, ours is more expensive wheat. Montana farmers fight other states in an uphill battle against opportunity-cost. Big Sky Country is a good place to run "shooters." That's what BNSF wants to do here. If there were more rail options, BNSF might just let them haul the wheat.

kenneo

Member since
December 2001
From: Upper Left Coast
1,796 posts

Posted by kenneo on Saturday, May 27, 2006 3:35 AM

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

As of 2006, parts (easten parts) of the Milwaukee remain viable. The CP depends on the Chicago-Twin Cities line, the IC&E operates midwest lines, and the BNSFoperates a chunk of ex-MILW trackage in South Dakota. But nobody was able to "save" the PCE because it had no economic viability.

Would you say if the PCE was in place from Seattle and Portland to the Twin Cities under an independant owner today, that it would now be viable ?

My take is that the PCE was the economicly most viable of the four Northern Trans-continental roads. Should the MILW have shed its Granger branches into short lines and/or regionals, kept its Monon purchase and merged or bought the E-L and shedding much of its Eastern End (mostly parts of the DLW), it would have been in a position to be an absolute economic powerhouse. It would be around today, perhaps merged with the SP and with parts of the CRIP.

The UP had the LASL and the Bay area as well as the OSL/OWRN and had sufficient traffic without any PNW traffic. The NP ended at Pasco until the UP gained control of the OWRN (which ran, originally, from Pasco to Portland with a branch to Huntington).

The GN, which wanted a Portland route joined with the NP to build the SPS so that they would have an independent access to Portland.

The NP, also at the time the UP took control of the OWRN, built its "Tacoma Branch" from Pasco over Stampede Pass. The GN terminated in Everett and built branches to Vancouver and Seattle.

The MILW was the only road that had as its original terminals Tacoma and Seattle, and they had the infrastructure at both ports to support a transcontinental main line. The NP and GN, although they were physically in both towns ahead of the MILW, did not build an infrastructure, and so played second fiddle to the MILW. This provided the MILW with its incrediblly remunerative long haul PCE traffic and the ability to turn a proffit while having almost no local originating or terminating traffic which was required to be turned over to the GN and NP at the Twin Cities.

The GN and NP permitted the MILW to build the PCE provided that the MILW turned over all traffic destined West of the Twin Cities to them that was not totally captive to the MILW.

This situation changed only as a result of the BN merger and the attitudes of the MILW employees and the physical economics of the MILW's line location resulted in that main line being the economicly most viable route. And the MILW made the most of it that they could despite a corporate management that tried to drain the company in a failed merger attempt with the CNW.

The MILW was the only Western Road that had a traffic balance that even approached equal East and West. They ended up short hauling the other three transcontinental roads in adition to the SP.

Eric

nanaimo73

Member since
April 2005
From: Nanaimo BC Canada
4,117 posts

Posted by nanaimo73 on Saturday, May 27, 2006 1:42 AM

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

As of 2006, parts (easten parts) of the Milwaukee remain viable. The CP depends on the Chicago-Twin Cities line, the IC&E operates midwest lines, and the BNSFoperates a chunk of ex-MILW trackage in South Dakota. But nobody was able to "save" the PCE because it had no economic viability.

Would you say if the PCE was in place from Seattle and Portland to the Twin Cities under an independant owner today, that it would now be viable ?

Dale

greyhounds

Member since
August 2003
From: Antioch, IL
4,371 posts

Posted by greyhounds on Saturday, May 27, 2006 1:10 AM

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

Michael-
Why didn't SORE try to acquire the Milwaukee Road from Seattle and Portland to Minneapolis, instead of all of the way to Louisville.

Greyhounds-
Do you hate the Milwaukee Road, or just Michael ?

Hate is not a logical emotion.

The US railroad network was overbuilt. The Milwaukee Road Pacific Coast Extension was part of the overbuilding. It's totally understandable. Nobody knew how large of a rail network the US would need, and nobody could possibly foresee the Interestate System, 80,000 pound trucks, or 737's.

In addition, the government mandated economic structure of the rail industry, a government approved and regulated cartel, encouraged overbuilding. It was reasonable for the MILW honchos to assume that all they had to do was build the PCE and they would be "awarded" "their share" of the buisiness priced at a level where everyone involved could make money. Didn't happen. The world had begun to change drastically by the time the PCE was built. Henry Ford and the Wright Brothers had already figured things out.

The very short era when railroad cartels controled all freight and passenger traffic was basically over when the PCE was built. It became just so much excess capacity and drug the railroad network down as its owners desperately sought to recoup part of their investment by grabbing any freight they could at any price they could.

As of 2006, parts (easten parts) of the Milwaukee remain viable. The CP depends on the Chicago-Twin Cities line, the IC&E operates midwest lines, and the BNSFoperates a chunk of ex-MILW trackage in South Dakota. But nobody was able to "save" the PCE because it had no economic viability.

I don't "hate" the Milwaukee. I just understand what it was.

Sol (and FM Dave) let their emotional ties to the Milwaukee get in the way of reason. Both of these guys have basically repeatedly said that BNSF is acting in a malicious way that harms Montana wheat farmers. That couldn't have happened if the MILW was still around to provide competition, or so those two say.

Well, it turns out that the BNSF wheat rates have been reduced in constant dollar terms (and that's the only way to realistically compare 1974 dollars with 2006 dollars, you have to adjust for inflation). Those rates are now, according to Sol's own numbers, about half of what they were in 1974 when the Milwaukee was still around.

Any rational person would expect that the state legislature of Montana would be passing resolutions praising BNSF for developing efficiencies that help the Montana farmers. But oh no! Sol and FM Dave (along with the Montana State Government) sieze on the issue that you can no longer make a decent living growing wheat in Montana to attack the BNSF - which has cut its rates in half (constant dollar terms) on grain shipments from Montana to export terminals.

What I hate (OK, I know. I'm not ALWAYS logical.) is the irrational behavior and thought on Sol's and FM's part. I don't hate the person.

I like railroads and trains. Always have, always will. But transportation is an economic activity. If a line can't support itself, I'll content myself to looking at pictures. Shoot, I think the Colorado narrow guage lines were wonderful. I'm fascinated by them. But I don't argue that those lines should still be around and operating today. Those lines are obsolete, just like the Milwaukee Road and those Montana wheat farmers. (Harsh!? OK, I can be harsh.)

And that sure was a fine picture of those two Little Joes in the snow. I can appreciate the past without devloping a baseless "conspiracy" theory to falsely explain the passing.

Ken Strawbridge

rrandb

Member since
December 2001
From: K.C.,MO.
1,063 posts

Posted by rrandb on Friday, May 26, 2006 9:40 PM

Thank you. It is kind hard to go out of business when you are profitable. It can be done but requires a lot of effort. As always ENJOY

kenneo

Member since
December 2001
From: Upper Left Coast
1,796 posts

Posted by kenneo on Friday, May 26, 2006 9:21 PM

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

After 17 pages I still do not have a clear picture of what happened to the MILW. Maybe it's all those #'s and name calling but my head is spinning. I got the losing money in the east and more than was made on the PCE part.But how do you end up selling the money making part for scrap? That takes some effort. [2c] As always ENJOY

Simple answer is politics. Also, the management of the MILW was trying to keep the stock price up and merge with the CNW, so kept siphoning off money from the PCE.

The politics included "my opinion is correct, and I will have it my way - the truth doesn't count" that the PCE was a money loser. Add that to the agenda of the BN to be rid of an effective competitor and the Federal Government DOT to "rid the US rail industry of excess capacity" and you have the majority of the reasons.

Eric

nanaimo73

Member since
April 2005
From: Nanaimo BC Canada
4,117 posts

Posted by nanaimo73 on Friday, May 26, 2006 7:30 PM

Michael-
Why didn't SORE try to acquire the Milwaukee Road from Seattle and Portland to Minneapolis, instead of all of the way to Louisville.

Greyhounds-
Do you hate the Milwaukee Road, or just Michael ?

Dale

rrandb

Member since
December 2001
From: K.C.,MO.
1,063 posts

Posted by rrandb on Friday, May 26, 2006 6:25 PM

After 17 pages I still do not have a clear picture of what happened to the MILW. Maybe it's all those #'s and name calling but my head is spinning. I got the losing money in the east and more than was made on the PCE part.But how do you end up selling the money making part for scrap? That takes some effort. [2c] As always ENJOY

MP173

Member since
May 2004
From: Valparaiso, In
5,921 posts

Posted by MP173 on Friday, May 26, 2006 2:44 PM

Yeah, I would like to see more pics. My shots of MILW are only a few at Sheldon, Indiana on the Southern Indiana line.

Michael...was MILW running much coal on the Southern Indiana line during the 70's?

I did get shots of Little Joes on the South Shore tho. If I can figure out how to scan them...well, that is asking too much.
ed

solzrules

Member since
January 2006
From: SE Wisconsin
1,181 posts

Posted by solzrules on Friday, May 26, 2006 2:38 PM

I agree that was a great picture. Got any more?

I see the argument over freight from 30 years ago is still in full swing, however.

You think this is bad? Just wait until inflation kicks in.....

MP173

Member since
May 2004
From: Valparaiso, In
5,921 posts

Posted by MP173 on Friday, May 26, 2006 2:34 PM

It is a very nice photograph.

I had asked several pages ago what the typical freight rates were for intermodal and general freight back in the 70's. Any info yet?

ed

greyhounds

Member since
August 2003
From: Antioch, IL
4,371 posts

Posted by greyhounds on Thursday, May 25, 2006 10:56 PM

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
Got a picture? I don't think so. You're blowing more smoke.

Counted 115 flatcars (230 containers/trailers) on this train, Milwaukee #262S (Seattle), in February, 1974. Milwaukee #262T (Tacoma, (included a Kansas City Block)) was about 45 minutes behind it. These trains had rolling crew changes -- didn't stop. Average train speed Tacoma-Chicago about 38 mph. Average westbound Milwaukee #261C (Chicago) and #261TC (Twin Cities), 42 mph. Compare to BNSF's current intermodal average train speed of 32.9 mph, or UP's 25.0 mph.

Boots on the ground.

WOW! The Milwaukee was "The Magic Road".

230 containers on a train of 115 89 foot flatcars. Good gravey, all the other railroads had to wait until double stack technology developed to get to intermodal trains that big. And it was a perfectly loaded train. There were 230 avaialble hitches on the flats, and MILW used every one of 'em. Boy let me tell you, nobody else came close to 115 car trains with a perfect trailer per car ratio of 2. And that thing would have been 10,000 feet long. It's "almost" unbelievable.

Anyway, what did they take back on the wesbound haul? A key to railroad intermodal profitability has always been to move the equipment under revenue in both directions. If 115 flatcars came east on this monster, what did they carry west.

Please don't tell me the MILW was so stupid that they moved 'em all west empty for zero revenue.

Nice picture though. Too bad we can't actually see some of the "230" containers.

I note diesels behind the "Joes". I understand that the electric system couldn't pump out enough power to allow more than two "Joes" to run at one time. Did the train have more diesels cut in as helpers?

I'll hand it to you that the MILW "tried". That 42mph scheduled time for #261 was on a par with ATSF #188 from Chicago to LA at 44mph. But the MILW couldn't maintian the schedule while Santa Fe could. They tried and failed. Why can't you just accept that?

Ken Strawbridge

greyhounds

Member since
August 2003
From: Antioch, IL
4,371 posts

Posted by greyhounds on Thursday, May 25, 2006 10:37 PM

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

There were 8000 containers arriving. It is correct that 40% of that went by truck or "local".

LIke a lot of Sol's "data", this is a moving target.

First he said that 8,000 arrived and went out by train with the MILW getting 100+ per day.

When it was pointed out that they ALL didn't leave on a train, he came up with some "additional" containers for the local freight and maintained that 8,000/month left on trains with the MILW handling 100+/day.

Now he's back to 8,000 total with 40% being "local" loads and not moving inland by train. (remember - he has steadfastly maintained that the MILW had 50% of the container business trhough the Port of Seattle)

Now he has variously said that that 50% is half of: a) 8,000 or b) 4,800.

Take your pick, but don't be hangin' your hat on the number - he'll change it again when it suits his purpose.

Ken Strawbridge