What happen to Milwaukee Road?

[n012944]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944
Neither, like I said in the rest of my post, just because something was good in the 20's doesn't mean it was needed in the 70's.(Like the PCE itself)

Well, what was the PCE's status in the 1970s? Traffic? Revenue? Connections? Haul length? Percentage of Gross Revenue? Percentage of Net? Carloadings -- up or down?

Here is a quote from the June 1979 issue of Trains on the PCE,

"Progress has seen the demise of all passing sidings on the west slope of the moutain between Cedar Falls and Hyak. The last of them, Garcia, was gone by mid-1978, obliging eastbound trains to hold at Cedar Falls for as long as 2 hours waiting for westbounds to pop into town."

That tells me that traffic is down, why would you be getting rid of passing sidings if traffic was up? When traffic is down, most of the time revenue,and carloadings will also be down.


Bert

That's it? That's the basis for a financial analysis of a transcontinental railroad line?

I think the most telling financial analysis was that it was ABANDONED. Don't need a law degree to figure that one out.


Bert

Bert

[n012944]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944
Neither, like I said in the rest of my post, just because something was good in the 20's doesn't mean it was needed in the 70's.(Like the PCE itself)

Well, what was the PCE's status in the 1970s? Traffic? Revenue? Connections? Haul length? Percentage of Gross Revenue? Percentage of Net? Carloadings -- up or down?

A lot more than in the 1980's
Bert

I had a feeling that it was a well-informed opinion.

Like I have always said, if the PCE in the 70's was doing sooooo great as the conspiracy theorists on this board would like to belive, there still would have been a PCE in the 80's and beyond.

Bert

[n012944]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944
Neither, like I said in the rest of my post, just because something was good in the 20's doesn't mean it was needed in the 70's.(Like the PCE itself)

Well, what was the PCE's status in the 1970s? Traffic? Revenue? Connections? Haul length? Percentage of Gross Revenue? Percentage of Net? Carloadings -- up or down?

A lot more than in the 1980's
Bert

I had a feeling that it was a well-informed opinion.

Like I have always said, if the PCE in the 70's was doing sooooo great as the conspiracy theorists on this board would like to belive, there still would have been a PCE in the 80's and beyond.

Bert

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by arbfbe
Now if management wants to abandon a line it always looks better to the ICC examiners if the railroad can show the line has a high cost of operation. An inordinate number of crews meeting their Hours of Service Law time expiration will significantly add to the costs of operation.

It has always bothered me that well-respected old-timers like Bill Wilkerson complained in various publications that 50 mph track was reduced to 10, and that neither the roadmasters nor the FRA inspectors understood why. Just "orders from Chicago."

But if the train had a business car on it, the speed was lifted to 50 or 60 again, then dropped again.

[MichaelSol]

Hi Alan, a tough call. Bill Brodsky phrased it "the railroad fell out from under the traffic." They had these enormous increases in tonnage -- grain, autos, intermodal -- everything that a railroad wanted but then they didn't increase the maintenance budget.

It wasn't "deferred" from the standpoint of the former tonnages, probably would have done just fine, but they couldn't run the tonnage up like they did, and not increase the budget.

No Transcon was growing like that in that short of a period.

I'd have to look, but I wonder if any Transcon has grown like that since in that short of a time frame -- and carloadings in 1977 were lower than 1976.

If American railroads had been growing in general like the Milwaukee PCE, there wouldn't have been a need for the Staggers Act.

But the budget didn't keep up. Of course, management was looking back East -- try and keep it running. Support the short hauls. That's where they were in trouble at and had been since 1968.

The PCE bought them time.

[arbfbe]

QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944
Neither, like I said in the rest of my post, just because something was good in the 20's doesn't mean it was needed in the 70's.(Like the PCE itself)

Well, what was the PCE's status in the 1970s? Traffic? Revenue? Connections? Haul length? Percentage of Gross Revenue? Percentage of Net? Carloadings -- up or down?

Here is a quote from the June 1979 issue of Trains on the PCE,

"Progress has seen the demise of all passing sidings on the west slope of the moutain between Cedar Falls and Hyak. The last of them, Garcia, was gone by mid-1978, obliging eastbound trains to hold at Cedar Falls for as long as 2 hours waiting for westbounds to pop into town."

That tells me that traffic is down, why would you be getting rid of passing sidings if traffic was up? When traffic is down, most of the time revenue,and carloadings will also be down.


Bert

The elimination may have had nothing to do with traffic volumes. The MILW trains were on the ground nearly every day in those areas of deferred maintenance. A lot of track was torn up including sidings. Now if management wants to abandon a line it always looks better to the ICC examiners if the railroad can show the line has a high cost of operation. An inordinate number of crews meeting their Hours of Service Law time expiration will significantly add to the costs of operation. Failing to repair damaged track will add to transit times.

Do not think that management was beyond 'cooking the books' to meet their desired goal. The employees who worked their can tell the true story.

[Anonymous]

Sol is apparantly trying out his ideas on this forum to see if anyone can disprove them. Probably he's working on an article and this is his way of peer-reviewing his ideas before trying to publi***hem. That's my guess.

[Anonymous]

Bert,
Don't waste your time with this guy. Just walk away from this thread and find something more useful to do with your time.

[MichaelSol]

Carloads handled, Milwaukee Road

Washington (Coast) Divisions

1971 ..174,377
1977 ..284,449

A 63% increase.

How was the traffic "down"?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944
Neither, like I said in the rest of my post, just because something was good in the 20's doesn't mean it was needed in the 70's.(Like the PCE itself)

Well, what was the PCE's status in the 1970s? Traffic? Revenue? Connections? Haul length? Percentage of Gross Revenue? Percentage of Net? Carloadings -- up or down?

Here is a quote from the June 1979 issue of Trains on the PCE,

"Progress has seen the demise of all passing sidings on the west slope of the moutain between Cedar Falls and Hyak. The last of them, Garcia, was gone by mid-1978, obliging eastbound trains to hold at Cedar Falls for as long as 2 hours waiting for westbounds to pop into town."

That tells me that traffic is down, why would you be getting rid of passing sidings if traffic was up? When traffic is down, most of the time revenue,and carloadings will also be down.


Bert

That's it? That's the basis for a financial analysis of a transcontinental railroad line?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944
Since most railroads would have gotten rid of all passenger traffic if they could, it has little to do with management. The GN and the NP knew that the ICC would not let them get rid of passenger service. Since the PCE missed most major towns it was not as big of a deal. Also note that for a couple of years AFTER Amtrak, passenger service was kept on both the old GN and NP.

Bert

Don't think that MILW understood that the RR that got out first, could get out, and the ones left, couldn't? No management thinking at all there?

Odd that NP finally petitioned to abandon the Mainstreeter, if your theory is true.

Which "major" towns did GN hit that MIlwaukee didn't, and vice-versa?

[n012944]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944
Neither, like I said in the rest of my post, just because something was good in the 20's doesn't mean it was needed in the 70's.(Like the PCE itself)

Well, what was the PCE's status in the 1970s? Traffic? Revenue? Connections? Haul length? Percentage of Gross Revenue? Percentage of Net? Carloadings -- up or down?

Here is a quote from the June 1979 issue of Trains on the PCE,

"Progress has seen the demise of all passing sidings on the west slope of the moutain between Cedar Falls and Hyak. The last of them, Garcia, was gone by mid-1978, obliging eastbound trains to hold at Cedar Falls for as long as 2 hours waiting for westbounds to pop into town."

That tells me that traffic is down, why would you be getting rid of passing sidings if traffic was up? When traffic is down, most of the time revenue,and carloadings will also be down.


Bert

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944
Neither, like I said in the rest of my post, just because something was good in the 20's doesn't mean it was needed in the 70's.(Like the PCE itself)

Well, what was the PCE's status in the 1970s? Traffic? Revenue? Connections? Haul length? Percentage of Gross Revenue? Percentage of Net? Carloadings -- up or down?

A lot more than in the 1980's
Bert

I had a feeling that it was a well-informed opinion.

[n012944]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944
Funny how times change. The letter states how wonderful MILW passenger service was, but the MILW was the first of the transcons to give it up.

Stupid? Or smart?

Neither, like I said in the rest of my post, just because something was good in the 20's doesn't mean it was needed in the 70's.(Like the PCE itself)

But, GN and NP hung on to their passenger operations until Amtrak. Was that good management or poor management?

Since most railroads would have gotten rid of all passenger traffic if they could, it has little to do with management. The GN and the NP knew that the ICC would not let them get rid of passenger service. Since the PCE missed most major towns it was not as big of a deal. Also note that for a couple of years AFTER Amtrak, passenger service was kept on both the old GN and NP.

Bert

[n012944]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944
Neither, like I said in the rest of my post, just because something was good in the 20's doesn't mean it was needed in the 70's.(Like the PCE itself)

Well, what was the PCE's status in the 1970s? Traffic? Revenue? Connections? Haul length? Percentage of Gross Revenue? Percentage of Net? Carloadings -- up or down?

A lot more than in the 1980's


Bert

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by arbfbe
The MILW managers and receivers elected to abandon the tracks with the longest haul distances and the least competition while retaining the lines with the shortest haul and the highest competition and the most EXCESS CAPACITY, those are the lines in IL, MN, WI, IA and MO.

That was the baffler, wasn't it?

As one well-known MILW VP put it: "here were railroads trying to combine, consolidate, get the long hauls, and here was Milwaukee Road, trying to get rid of its long hauls; arguing that it could make money on short hauls. No one else could. It never made any sense."

[arbfbe]

QUOTE: Originally posted by martin.knoepfel

If the Milwaukee had a superior alignment, why did BN (not BNSF) not buy it and close down its own lines into the PNW? After all, if BN is such a greedy company as depicted here, it should run for profit and nothing else.

The huge 900 lb gorilla in the railroad industry in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s was EXCESS CAPACITY. All the railroads and the US Govt were out to reduce EXCESS CAPACITY. The ICC even went so far as to do at least two restructuring plans on their own to sort of lay the groundwork for mergers they would likely approve. No one in the industry much liked these plans and continued on in their own march to reduce EXCESS CAPACITY. The Hill lines did not want to be stripped from each other but did want to reduce their capacity. The best line in their portfolio to the PNW was the GN. The laggard step child was the NP. Their plan as put forth in the Weyer report was to eliminate much of the NP line from mainline status and operate that which was left as branchliness feeding the mainline to increase traffic capacity on the GN tracks. Purchase of the MILW tracks would increase the effeciency of the NP mainline which would reduce the effeciency of the GN line. The more revenue cars you can route over a section of track the lower the costs per car become. That is the force which drove the BN merger.

The MILW managers and receivers elected to abandon the tracks with the longest haul distances and the least competition while retaining the lines with the shortest haul and the highest competition and the most EXCESS CAPACITY, those are the lines in IL, MN, WI, IA and MO.

Simply purchasing the MILW line between Huson, MT and St Regis, MT would have replaced a lot of 35 mph trackage with 60 mph trackage and it could have been had for scrap prices. Local managers recognized the cost savings to them, reduced mow costs and reduced crew costs due to a lower level of dog catching expenses. The idea was quickly shot down by upper levels of management since they were planning to reduce the line to branch line only status when they could. By the time the BNSF came about the line had been leased to MRL and is now too fractured to be purchased and rebuilt.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944
Funny how times change. The letter states how wonderful MILW passenger service was, but the MILW was the first of the transcons to give it up.

Stupid? Or smart?

Neither, like I said in the rest of my post, just because something was good in the 20's doesn't mean it was needed in the 70's.(Like the PCE itself)

But, GN and NP hung on to their passenger operations until Amtrak. Was that good management or poor management?

[UPJohn]

QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas

Yes, SOO line (Canadian Pacific's American subsidiary) bought the eastern part of the Milwakee Road in 85'.

Was it just the eastern part or the whole railroad?

P.S. The Soo "Bandit Scheme" is cool

John

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944
Neither, like I said in the rest of my post, just because something was good in the 20's doesn't mean it was needed in the 70's.(Like the PCE itself)

Well, what was the PCE's status in the 1970s? Traffic? Revenue? Connections? Haul length? Percentage of Gross Revenue? Percentage of Net? Carloadings -- up or down?

[n012944]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944
Funny how times change. The letter states how wonderful MILW passenger service was, but the MILW was the first of the transcons to give it up.

Stupid? Or smart?

Neither, like I said in the rest of my post, just because something was good in the 20's doesn't mean it was needed in the 70's.(Like the PCE itself)


Bert

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944
Funny how times change. The letter states how wonderful MILW passenger service was, but the MILW was the first of the transcons to give it up.

Stupid? Or smart?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo
Interestingly, the BN did end up with quite a bit of the PCE. And during the MILW shedding itself of the PCE, it could have taken over the line for Net Salvage Value, but I am not aware of it ever having tried to do so.

The coalition of employees and shippers, SORE, tried to do that, and the Trustee did everything he could to ensure that there was not going to be a successor transcontinental line there. SORE's offer was something like $152 million, west of Miles City. Hillman wanted to make sure that line was dead, even though the SORE proposal would have given Hillman more than he got through liquidation and sales, saved railroad employee employment, avoided at least to that extent the New York Dock threat, and kept 12 MGT high revenue freight coming onto the Milwaukee at Miles City.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

QUOTE: Originally posted by cornmaze

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol
From an NP list.

Not sure why the poster is protecting the source. I know that NP list and the poster is not a member of it. [xx(]

A member of both the NP list and the MILW list reposted this letter from the NP list to the MILW list. Not being a member of the NP list, I do not know who the original poster was or who or where the original letter came from (repository).

I have no knowledge of why this letter was published in the first place and other than it mentioned the MILW, why it was reposted onto the MILW list.

I know of only the obvious reason for its reposting here - "Evidence" of the sort that Ken Strawbridge has been saying he is looking for. Interesting part of it is, this letter as well as much more information about these subjects are available to any one who has a legitmate interest in them.

Many historians have delved into these archives and repositories and published their thoughts and conclusions in several different books. It is, mostly, from these books that our beliefs and opinions have come as well as our own personal experiences had with working for the MILW or from working with the MILW. Also, several of us have had similar experiences with the NP and after the merger with the BN.

Personally, when I saw this on the MILW list, it was the first time for me to have seen or have any direct knowledge of this letter. However, it matches quite well what I know of the NP during that time. My family lived in the Yellowstone Valley for about 20-25 years up to 1931, owned a lumber yard chain, a bank and several ranches - one of which is now a big whole in the ground which PRB coal is removed. My family had close connection with the NP, the GN and also the MILW. What my father and grandfather have told me about these companies matches the information contained in this letter.

Yep. But the Milwaukee just couldn't stay solvent doing what it did.

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by cornmaze

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol
From an NP list.

Not sure why the poster is protecting the source. I know that NP list and the poster is not a member of it. [xx(]

The original poster was Jerry Masters. He's a good friend of mine. Does a lot of historical research. Retired civil engineer, NP, BN. We're working on some projects together. Not "protecting" anyone, just happened to be an interesting comment that came up. I imagine Jerry got it from the NP archives; he's done a lot of good work there, finding a good deal of MILW history, from the perspective of its competitors. He usually visits during the summer, I'll ask him.

Thanks, Michael. I, for one, will be looking forward to what you may learn.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cornmaze

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol
From an NP list.

Not sure why the poster is protecting the source. I know that NP list and the poster is not a member of it. [xx(]

The original poster was either John Phillips, who allegedly retyped it, or Jerry Masters, whose name happened to be at the bottom. He's a good friend of mine. Does a lot of historical research. Retired civil engineer, NP, BN. We're working on some projects together. Not "protecting" anyone, just happened to be an interesting comment that came up. I imagine Jerry got it from the NP archives; he's done a lot of good work there, finding a good deal of MILW history, from the perspective of its competitors. He usually visits during the summer, I'll ask him.

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by martin.knoepfel

If the Milwaukee had a superior alignment, why did BN (not BNSF) not buy it and close down its own lines into the PNW? After all, if BN is such a greedy company as depicted here, it should run for profit and nothing else.

If you are familiar with the BN at the time, it wasn't doing too well. Not like there was extra cash laying around to buy anything; Operating Ratios exceeding 90%, and then trying to accomplish/digest the Frisco Merger (or the other way around depending on your point of view).

Yes, depending upon your opinion. Legally, the BN merged or purchased ( your choice of how to view it) with the Frisco. Operationally and corporate managemently, the Frisco devoured the BN, these men were the ones that built the reputation and operating philosophy of the BN hat has been so vilified here. The BNSF currently operates largely with that attitude in the Lines North that were originally NP, GN and SPS.

Interestingly, the BN did end up with quite a bit of the PCE. And during the MILW shedding itself of the PCE, it could have taken over the line for Net Salvage Value, but I am not aware of it ever having tried to do so.

[n012944]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

From and NP list. Excerpts of an interal memo at the Northern Pacific Railroad regarding UP, MILW and GN competition. Interesting take on things.

Howard Elliott, Chairman, New York, to Charles Donnelly,
President,
St. Paul, December 11, 1920
...

The St. Paul road, in making its extension to the coast, introduced a most active competitive force in Northern Pacific territory all the way from the Montana-South Dakota state line to Puget Sound. This line divides the business in the Yellowstone and Gallatin valleys, at Butte, the lumber territory of northern Idaho, at Spokane, in the Palouse and Big Bend wheat country, in the Kittitas Valley, in the Puget Sound country and in the Gray's Harbor and South Bend territory. Their line to the coast is shorter than that of the Northern Pacific, and considerable of it is electrified, attracting thereby much attention of the traveler and the shipper.

Their passenger equipment on the through trains between Chicago and the North Pacific Coast is today superior to that of the Northern Pacific, and in any competitive struggle, better time can be made by the St. Paul road than by the Northern Pacific, because of the shorter distance. They are very aggressive as to all features of commercial development and in catering to the public, and with their own line to Chicago and a large mileage in Wisconsin, Minnesota and South Dakota, they are formidable competitors on all westbound business to Montana, Idaho and Washington points and for products of those states moving east to the consuming territory of the Missouri and Mississippi valleys.

Funny how times change. The letter states how wonderful MILW passenger service was, but the MILW was the first of the transcons to give it up. Same could be said for the PCE itself, great in the booming twenties, redundant by the sixties/seventies.


Bert

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cornmaze

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol
From an NP list.

Not sure why the poster is protecting the source. I know that NP list and the poster is not a member of it. [xx(]

A member of both the NP list and the MILW list reposted this letter from the NP list to the MILW list. Not being a member of the NP list, I do not know who the original poster was or who or where the original letter came from (repository).

I have no knowledge of why this letter was published in the first place and other than it mentioned the MILW, why it was reposted onto the MILW list.

I know of only the obvious reason for its reposting here - "Evidence" of the sort that Ken Strawbridge has been saying he is looking for. Interesting part of it is, this letter as well as much more information about these subjects are available to any one who has a legitmate interest in them.

Many historians have delved into these archives and repositories and published their thoughts and conclusions in several different books. It is, mostly, from these books that our beliefs and opinions have come as well as our own personal experiences had with working for the MILW or from working with the MILW. Also, several of us have had similar experiences with the NP and after the merger with the BN.

Personally, when I saw this on the MILW list, it was the first time for me to have seen or have any direct knowledge of this letter. However, it matches quite well what I know of the NP during that time. My family lived in the Yellowstone Valley for about 20-25 years up to 1931, owned a lumber yard chain, a bank and several ranches - one of which is now a big whole in the ground which PRB coal is removed. My family had close connection with the NP, the GN and also the MILW. What my father and grandfather have told me about these companies matches the information contained in this letter.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

QUOTE: Originally posted by arbfbe

greyhound,

It is somewhat easy to be confused when a Yahoo search leads to this:

http://www.gra-america.org/b_kstrawbridge.html

How come I get a 404 error on that link.

Ken --- you got an answer there?[oops][tdn]

I don't know about the 404 error, but it's from the past. I was, past tense, affilitated as "National Spokesman" with a Greyhound racing fan organization.

I love Greyhounds, I think they're the most magnificent animal on the planet and that racing is a wonderful showcase for these magnificent animals. When my X told me she was leaving she said: "I'm leaving and I'm taking the dogs". My reply: "Why do you have to take the dogs?"

I was in racing for 13 years as an owner and breeder. I can't think of any other doemsticated animal that enjoys the care and protection of a racing Greyhound. I'll stand by my often repeated statement that Greyhound racing is fun, exciting and humane.

Sol is using my past involvement with Greyhound racing as a way to attack me. It has nothing to do with our discussions of railroading. But I think he's so desperate that he'll stoop to using the false propaganda of animal rights activists against me.

Ken Strawbridge