What happen to Milwaukee Road?

[ValorStorm]

The rumor was that before there was an MRL, Bill Brodsky drew up a business plan to take over the PCE before it was to be pulled up, and run it in direct competition to BN's former NP, not just thru Montana, but along its entire length. This MAY have been a factor in BN's acquiescing to the release of the NP line in the first place. In one of the aforementioned "heated discussions" in a (hopefully) locked thread, I made this insipid point and caught all-fired hades for it. Montana was a hot topic back then.

Speaking of Montana Power Co., I'm personal friends with the co-founders of the original pre-Montana Power "Touch America." Those two men stood resolute thru a firestorm of litigation from MPC. They lost control of the company they founded. But when the "new" Touch America tanked, I expected those two would enjoy the last laugh. Not a word out of either of them. They humbly refused to discuss bygones.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
And sometimes they do the right things that some unfortunate people just won't accept as the right things.

Yes, when the losses doubled as soon as the PCE was shut down, that sure proved the point in an emphatic way, if nothing else would.

Of course, for some, that meant it was the right thing to do .... because that's how they learned math.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

Why then, and I realize that this may have been discussed before, did the Milwaukee abandon its electric power?

If I may venture an abstract guess, Milwaukee jettisoned it's electric power (and eventually it's whole PCE) for the same reason(s) Montana Power Co. jettisoned all it's power plants and became (gag!) TouchAmerica - sometimes management just does stupid things.

BTW, where exactly are you in that photo? It looks like just north of Avery.

And sometimes they do the right things that some unfortunate people just won't accept as the right things.

[solzrules]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Tancarter

I stumbled on this site by accident looking for something else related to the Milwaukee Road. While I am not a history buff, reading the posts has brought back a lot of good memories. My dad worked for Milwaukee in the early '70's in Montana, Idaho and Washington, and I truly lived in a box car as we followed him all over working on the line. We even spent time in Avery. My mother tells stories about staying there and about drunken bears feasting on the fermented grain from derailed cars. When we weren't following my dad, our home was in Ryegate, where I listened to the Milwaukee rumble past until it sneaked off in to the dark .

Did your Dad stay with the RR up until the abandonment?

[Anonymous]

I stumbled on this site by accident looking for something else related to the Milwaukee Road. While I am not a history buff, reading the posts has brought back a lot of good memories. My dad worked for Milwaukee in the early '70's in Montana, Idaho and Washington, and I truly lived in a box car as we followed him all over working on the line. We even spent time in Avery. My mother tells stories about staying there and about drunken bears feasting on the fermented grain from derailed cars. When we weren't following my dad, our home was in Ryegate, where I listened to the Milwaukee rumble past until it sneaked off in to the dark .

[solzrules]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

Why then, and I realize that this may have been discussed before, did the Milwaukee abandon its electric power?

If I may venture an abstract guess, Milwaukee jettisoned it's electric power (and eventually it's whole PCE) for the same reason(s) Montana Power Co. jettisoned all it's power plants and became (gag!) TouchAmerica - sometimes management just does stupid things.

BTW, where exactly are you in that photo? It looks like just north of Avery.

I am standing on the abandoned Milwaukee Road right of way on the Hiawatha trail in extreme western Montana. Out of view on the right is the freeway I-90 (I think). We were able to drive on this right of way for a number of miles. If I get a chance, I will post a few more pics tonight. I was hoping that I might find some ties or spikes and stuff from when they pulled everything up in '81(?). Fortunately, we found all of these things and more. When they salvaged the railroad they didn't take the stuff that would be of no use wahtsoever. Avery is slightly to the south and a ways to the west yet.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

Why then, and I realize that this may have been discussed before, did the Milwaukee abandon its electric power?

If I may venture an abstract guess, Milwaukee jettisoned it's electric power (and eventually it's whole PCE) for the same reason(s) Montana Power Co. jettisoned all it's power plants and became (gag!) TouchAmerica - sometimes management just does stupid things.

BTW, where exactly are you in that photo? It looks like just north of Avery.

[solzrules]

Why then, and I realize that this may have been discussed before, did the Milwaukee abandon its electric power?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by erikem
Noel Holley's The Milwaukee Electrics stated that the catenary was good for a maximum of 4,000 amps per train (could be a bit higher on a winter night). This would imply a maximum of 14,000 to 15,000 hp from a pair of Joe's.

That's probably about right for the 500,000 cm equivalent contact wire if it was carrying the whole load itself. However, at most locations there was a 500,000 cm copper feeder cable, and on mountain grades, an additional 750,000 cm aluminum feeder cable.

Two Joes working hard could pull 3,000 amps. An EF-5 working hard would pull about 2300 amps.

EF-5s were the routine helpers assigned to the DFWs and DFEs, which were also generally double Joe assignments. So, working hard over St. Paul Pass, a typical version of #266 would be using 5,280 amps. About 23,300 overload horsepower for these heavy trains. This was a standard line-up that happened 2-4 times a day.

Noel and I discussed this some time ago, and had a difference of opinion. He felt that the requirement, under those circumstances, of nearly 18,000 kw of power showed that the typical Milwaukee substation, and the system as a whole, lacked capacity.

I pointed out that a single substation was not designed to handle train loads, the Milwaukee system had been designed in sections, with each section to be supported by two substations. So, rather than 6,000 kw, only, available to the train from, say, East Portal Substation, the continuous design capacity was a minimum of 10,000 kw, or, if three substations were put into a section, 14,000 kw of continuous capacity.

In addition, because the Milwaukee Motor-Generator sets were designed to operate at 200% overload for at least an hour, the power capacity to the train was a minimum of 20,000 or 28,000 kw at a one-hour rating.

In addition, the system was designed to be more efficient the more it was used. So, if, for instance, a DFW was working hard up Donald, and Train #263 was regenerating past Janney, #263 would be supplying something like 30-40% of the power being used by the DFW (which would be a heavier train) through the regeneration. In that instance, the trains would be working hard, but the substations would be practically loafing, because one train is supplying a substantial portion of the energy being used by the other train.

Amperage could also be controlled by lowering voltage. East Portal could supply 1,765 amps continuous at 3400 volts, but 2,143 at 2400 volts.

So, ordinarily, trolley sag was not a problem where the Milwaukee tended to use the power because of the redundancy of the system and the feeder system, and likewise had plenty of overall capacity to supply heavy trains. The idea of 23,000 hp available to move a train, of which a good deal would be recaptured on regeneration, was one reason Milwaukee's Electrification was so successful.

There were a few recorded instances of 4 Little Joes being on a head end, or of a double Joe being used as a helper for a double Joe powered freight, and those represented a voracious appetite for power, no doubt. However, that underscores why those 60 year old GE units, in their 4 unit configuration, were such splendid helper power on the Milwaukee Road.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[erikem]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Well, I am sure the catenary would be melting as well.

Noel Holley's The Milwaukee Electrics stated that the catenary was good for a maximum of 4,000 amps per train (could be a bit higher on a winter night). This would imply a maximum of 14,000 to 15,000 hp from a pair of Joe's and also that you didn't want more than two Joe's on a train - but you could cheat and tell the crew never to go beyond half series (i.e. 4 motors in series).

Too bad that the Milw didn't react fast enough and get all 20 Joe's.

[MichaelSol]

Added the following to my previous comment:

The GE demonstrator, #750, had been measured to achieve 35% adhesion on a 2.2% grade at Boylston, and at that rating, would have 152,390 pounds of tractive effort. After the Milwaukee purchase and the addition of 40 tons of additional weight, it is likely that the actual performance of a Joe in terms of tractive effort was substantially higher than the book ratings, probably closer to 180,000 lbs TE. Milwaukee simply never measured the TE after the weight was added.

Electrical equipment could put out more horsepower, for instance, for shorter periods. A Joe could conceivably put out 10,000 hp for a 15 minute rating, and in cold weather, that short time rating might be closer to the one hour rating. But, it would slip its wheels, so that much horsepower couldn't be used. Seven thousand horsepower from a Joe was measured on Butte Hill by Barry Kirk, and didn't slip, but that had to be close, the Joe had to be approaching 40% adhesion and 200,000 lbs TE. No wonder their Godfather, H.R. Morgan at the Milwaukee Road, called them "a wonderful locomotive." An EF-5 had a potential hp rating on that basis of 20,000 hp and over 400,000 lbs TE.

[solzrules]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by CMSTPP
I believe the little joes were rated at 5500 Horse power. But it wasn't all HP that made them effecient. There tractive effort was so great, 250,000 pounds per square inch. This made the locomotive able to haul large trains over the mountains.

Well, Milwaukee never published new figures after the voltage upgrade to 3400 volts DC. The Joes weren't really the workhorse in terms of tractive effort. The GE boxcab was the workhorse. The Joes were more like a thoroughbred; built to move fast.

These are at 3400 volts:

The EF-1,2, and 5 are one, two and four unit GE Boxcabs. The EF-4 is the GE 750 series, aka Milwaukee Little Joe.

Class .. cont. hp...one hr hp...TE
...EF-1...3,785.....4,647.....112,750
...EF-2...5,678.....6,970.....169,000
...EF-4...5,791.....6,267.....108,850
...EF-5...7,571.....9,293.....232,750

Electrical equipment could put out more horsepower, for instance, for shorter periods. A Joe could conceivably put out 10,000 hp for a 15 minute rating, and in cold weather, that short time rating might be closer to the one hour rating. But, it would slip its wheels, so that much horsepower couldn't be used. Seven thousand horsepower from a Joe was measured on Butte Hill by Barry Kirk, and didn't slip, but that had to be close ... An EF-5 had a potential hp rating on that basis of 20,000 hp.

Best regards, Michael Sol

That much power is just insane. Do you know how many AC4400's that would equal? That's crazy. That engine would probably rip the rails out from underneath it. It would be kind of neat to watch. Ot watch the wheels grind down to the axle stubs, one of the two.

[Anonymous]

Those were some good photos.

[MichaelSol]

Well, I am sure the catenary would be melting as well.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[kenneo]

ZOUNDS[:O] Simply [alien] 20,000 Horse? You sure that the wheels were turning along with the axels, or were the axels simply turning with the wheel[wow]

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CMSTPP
I believe the little joes were rated at 5500 Horse power. But it wasn't all HP that made them effecient. There tractive effort was so great, 250,000 pounds per square inch. This made the locomotive able to haul large trains over the mountains.

Well, Milwaukee never published new figures after the voltage upgrade to 3400 volts DC. The Joes weren't really the workhorse in terms of tractive effort. The GE boxcab was the workhorse. The Joes were more like a thoroughbred; built to move fast.

These are at 3400 volts:

The EF-1,2, and 5 are two, three and four unit GE Boxcabs. The EF-4 is the GE 750 series, aka Milwaukee Little Joe.

Class .. cont. hp...one hr hp...TE
...EF-1...3,785.....4,647.....112,750
...EF-2...5,678.....6,970.....169,000
...EF-4...5,791.....6,267.....108,850
...EF-5...7,571.....9,293.....232,750

The GE demonstrator, #750, had been measured to achieve 35% adhesion on a 2.2% grade at Boylston, and at that rating, would have 152,390 pounds of tractive effort. After the Milwaukee purchase and the addition of 40 tons of additional weight, it is likely that the actual performance of a Joe in terms of tractive effort was substantially higher than the book ratings, probably closer to 180,000 lbs TE. Milwaukee simply never measured the TE after the weight was added.

Electrical equipment could put out more horsepower, for instance, for shorter periods. A Joe could conceivably put out 10,000 hp for a 15 minute rating, and in cold weather, that short time rating might be closer to the one hour rating. But, it would slip its wheels, so that much horsepower couldn't be used. Seven thousand horsepower from a Joe was measured on Butte Hill by Barry Kirk, and didn't slip, but that had to be close, the Joe had to be approaching 40% adhesion and 200,000 lbs TE ... An EF-5 had a potential hp rating on that basis of 20,000 hp and over 400,000 lbs TE.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[solzrules]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CMSTPP
By the way, nice pics of the GP38-2. Pretty cool to see that still working. In duluth here there is a Ex milwaukee GP40 still working in the yard. It has been repainted I hope to get some pics of it tomorrow.

James

Thanks! I couldn't beleive what I was seeing, but fortunately the camera was in hand. I also have a picture I took of an SDL-39 in Cedarburg. It is a really crappy picture, though. I was something like 9 years old when I took it. The engine has the WC reporting marks on it, but it is still in Milw Road paint. I think those engines are in Brazil now or something. As for the Geeps - yeah it is great that they are still working. After Soo Line took over the remains of the Milwaukee Road the Soo was saying that all of the Milw Rd's engines were junk. Apparently not, huh?

[CMSTPP]

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

Something else to consider regarding DC Series motors. The more load is placed on them, the more current they draw. This increase in current increases the electro-magnetic field in the motor. This causes the motor to work even harder. They are the perfect motors for a train. They work even more efficiently with more load on them. That's how these little Joe engines were rated at 7000 hp. They probably could have maxed out at an even higher horsepower.

I believe the little joes were rated at 5500 Horse power. But it wasn't all HP that made them effecient. There tractive effort was so great, 250,000 pounds per square inch. This made the locomotive able to haul large trains over the mountains.
Now If you are talking about the Box cab, rated for over 15000 HP and a tractive effort over 300,000 ponds per square inch. These are the locomotives that could put out the power. There dynamic brake power was unbelieveable. They would over power 3 SD40-2's with dynamic power. They were the brutes of the Milwaukee road.
This is why I am so interested in the Milwaukee road. There electrics were like no other. Box cabs could come in 5 sets. The first set was EF1. This consisted of two cab units. EF2 consisted of three units, Two cab and a samll B unit in the middle powered by the cab units. EF3 consisted of three units also except all three units were the same size. Bring out more power than the EF2 set. The middle unit was also a B unit powered by the cab units. EF4 consisted of four units. Two cab and to smaller B units. both B units powered by the cab units. and EF5 consisting of four units. All of the same size and power. again the middle two were powered by the cab units.

By the way, nice pics of the GP38-2. Pretty cool to see that still working. In duluth here there is a Ex milwaukee GP40 still working in the yard. It has been repainted I hope to get some pics of it tomorrow.

James

[solzrules]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
And we've got people right here on this board who want the Federal Government to divert money from the BNSF so people can grow wheat in Montana to produce noodles in the Far East.

And who might that be? The ones on our side who defend Montana farmers against BNSF's rate structure simply desire intramodal competition for BNSF as a means of empowering market based competitive rates. If that means breaking up BNSF or forcing BNSF to host a competitor on it's tracks to comply with Staggers Act caveats, or in subidizing a new railroad into BNSF's territory to provide that competition, so be it. No one has said we should divert money from BNSF and give it to farmers as far as I know.

HEE HEE HEE Or they could let the DME build on the PCE ROW. I got a tie! Let's done build us a railyroad!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
And we've got people right here on this board who want the Federal Government to divert money from the BNSF so people can grow wheat in Montana to produce noodles in the Far East.

And who might that be? The ones on our side who defend Montana farmers against BNSF's rate structure simply desire intramodal competition for BNSF as a means of empowering market based competitive rates. If that means breaking up BNSF or forcing BNSF to host a competitor on it's tracks to comply with Staggers Act caveats, or in subidizing a new railroad into BNSF's territory to provide that competition, so be it. No one has said we should divert money from BNSF and give it to farmers as far as I know.

[solzrules]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

Oh. Well in that regard, you may be right. I suppose it would depend on the commodity prices and stuff like that. After reading about the troubles the DME are having over upgrading an existing line, I was speculating about the trouble other railroads might have doing something similar (upgrading infastructure).

Ah. The reason the DME had so much trouble is that they coupled the rehab and the new construction. The rehab then fell under the same rules as new construction. Had they kept a clear disconnect (principally by not saying a word about any rehab or up grading and just doing the work as if it were a normal maintainence cycle), only the new construction would have fallen under the view of folks.

That's interesting. It would be kind of funny if you think about it. What if they rehabbed the whole line under Rochester's nose and then built their PRB extension? The Mayo clinic wouldn't fight the rehab and they would feel that PRB extension wouldn't affect them. Then DME starts to run 50 trains a day through Rochester and they can't do anything about it. HA! I reli***he thought. Just think about the NIMBY bleating then!

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

Oh. Well in that regard, you may be right. I suppose it would depend on the commodity prices and stuff like that. After reading about the troubles the DME are having over upgrading an existing line, I was speculating about the trouble other railroads might have doing something similar (upgrading infastructure).

Ah. The reason the DME had so much trouble is that they coupled the rehab and the new construction. The rehab then fell under the same rules as new construction. Had they kept a clear disconnect (principally by not saying a word about any rehab or up grading and just doing the work as if it were a normal maintainence cycle), only the new construction would have fallen under the view of folks.

[solzrules]

Oh. Well in that regard, you may be right. I suppose it would depend on the commodity prices and stuff like that. After reading about the troubles the DME are having over upgrading an existing line, I was speculating about the trouble other railroads might have doing something similar (upgrading infastructure).

[kenneo]

Wasn't trying to be "all inclusive" on costs. Was trying to show that the cost of new diesels is just about the same as stringing wire and buying electrics.

[solzrules]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

Grehyounds ---- a bit of perspective on cost ---- Horse per dollar spent on electrification and DE equal out. That makes the conversion a wash between new DE's and stringing wires and buying E's(electrics). Electrics last much longer than DE's so the end cost, even if the cost of fuel goes back to 10 cents/gal., is going to come out cheaper.

The current price per barrel of oil will go up and down, but it will end up going up. Simply put, the payback period will get shorter over time.

BNSF's procurement problems are not simply a choice between diesels and track on the one hand and stringing wire on the other. As stated above, wires in the long run will absolutely be cheaper. Even if the BNSF strings wires, it still must lay more main track. Stringing wire won't negate the capacity problems lack of track makes.

I think greyhounds has a point, though. The NIMBY crowd would have to be placated over electrification. They already complain about the potential for cancer around high tension lines (not proven). I am sure if they have the opportunity to object to rail electrification, they will do that as well. Once you factor in the costs of extended litigation, it may very well not be worth it.

[kenneo]

Grehyounds ---- a bit of perspective on cost ---- Horse per dollar spent on electrification and DE equal out. That makes the conversion a wash between new DE's and stringing wires and buying E's(electrics). Electrics last much longer than DE's so the end cost, even if the cost of fuel goes back to 10 cents/gal., is going to come out cheaper.

The current price per barrel of oil will go up and down, but it will end up going up. Simply put, the payback period will get shorter over time.

BNSF's procurement problems are not simply a choice between diesels and track on the one hand and stringing wire on the other. As stated above, wires in the long run will absolutely be cheaper. Even if the BNSF strings wires, it still must lay more main track. Stringing wire won't negate the capacity problems lack of track makes.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

Electric motors remain as on of the most efficient ways to transfer fuel energy into mechanical energy. They are better than a steam engine because there is less maintenance. They are also more precise. I am suprised that there aren't more railroads in the US playing around with electrifaction. Perhaps it is the long distances over thousands of miles that cause railroads to pass over the technology. It is far easier to maintain a grid in Europe (small country size) as opposed to the US (large country size).

The problem with railroad electrification is that it is a totally "bet the company" proposition.

I'm fairly confident that electrification of high density main lines, such as BNSF's Transcon, would pay off very well. But where do they get the money? And what if oil is at $20/barrel 10 years from now? Then there wouldn't be any payback. Nobody can see 10 years out. Even if BNSF could access the money, which they can't, would you bet your house on something 10 years out.

Matt Rose can't do that. He can't find funding for the capital projects his railroad needs now. And we've got people right here on this board who want the Federal Government to divert money from the BNSF so people can grow wheat in Montana to produce noodles in the Far East. For him to try to borrow money for something that "might" pay out 10 years hence would be insane.

And then he'd have to fight the folks that would claim that those electric wires would give 'em cancer.

Just buy some more diesels and lay some more track. Anything else just ain't gonna' be worth it.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

And not quite a year later diesel fuel went from $0.10 per gallon to $1.00 per. Those GE figures were made using the 10 cent figure.

Right on the button to the significant digit. The studies used 9.6 cents as the cost of diesel fuel.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[erikem]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Substation # 2 is about 28 miles west of Two Dot. A line relocation project in the mid-1950s put the track lower and behind the substation, relocated from the former grade in front of the substation. Loweth was at Milepost 1380.9 and the line located at about 5700’, 5802' before the 1956 line relocation. Forsyth was at Milepost 1164.

To be more precise, Forsyth was across the Yellowstone river from Milepost 1164.

I had in my mind that the Milw headed north closer to Miles City than Forsyth, but was confusing the fact that the Milw went to the north side of the Yellowstone a few miles west of Miles City (well before Hathaway) and then followed the north bank of the Yellowstone until it was across the river from Forsyth.

My curiosity wa spiqued enough that I downloaded the 100,000:1 DRG's for the Milw main line through Montana from the Montana State library website - was able to spot the sites for most of the substations. In addition, was able to spot the site of the 1938 washout (Saugus) that resulted in 47 fatalities - I remember seeing a "this day in history" item in the newspaper in 1968 and mentioned that to my dad (who grew up in Miles City) and he remembered knwoing some people who were waiting for that train to arrive.

Note about 3 KV DC

Even as of 10 years ago, it made more sense to convert HVDC commuter lines to commercial frequency AC, but it is now possible to buy 3+ KV rated IGBT's off the shelf. Seems to me that an inverter system could be much smaller and lighter running off of 3 KV than off of 50/60 Hz.

[solzrules]

Electric motors remain as on of the most efficient ways to transfer fuel energy into mechanical energy. They are better than a steam engine because there is less maintenance. They are also more precise. I am suprised that there aren't more railroads in the US playing around with electrifaction. Perhaps it is the long distances over thousands of miles that cause railroads to pass over the technology. It is far easier to maintain a grid in Europe (small country size) as opposed to the US (large country size).