QUOTE: Originally posted by Kevin C. Smith Would it have been economically possible to increase clearences when double stacks came into widespread use? Or would the electrification, if it had survived the 70's, become the PCE's drawback in the 80's?
QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173 Michael (and others): What was the physical capacity of the PCE? I assume from photos I have seen it was mainly single track. I assume it was train orders (single track). What were average lengths of sidings? and how far apart were the sidings spaced? Photos I have seen have indicated a pretty severe operating environment with lots of trestles, fills, canyons, etc. How would the PCE "projected" as a current day operation? How many trains could the line handled per day? I know this is all hypothetical, but still...it is interesting to know and fun to speculate.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173 I dont quite see how 10 freights a day would sink a railroad, but I guess it could happen if the slow orders kept coming and nothing was re-invested into the physical plant.
QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules Michael, that's very interesting stuff. I take it you must have worked for the railroad?
QUOTE: Originally posted by 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. And sometimes they do the right things that some unfortunate people just won't accept as the right things.
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.
QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules Why then, and I realize that this may have been discussed before, did the Milwaukee abandon its electric power?
QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173 So, the issues for it to have been viable in todays market would have been to have increased the siding lengths, convert to CTC, and have enough power to handle the freight.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173 So, the issues for it to have been viable in todays market would have been to have increased the siding lengths, convert to CTC, and have enough power to handle the freight. Well, the PCE had greater capacity in 1970 than the former GN, now BNSF, line has in 2006. Not sure what "viability" means in that context. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds The MILW as a corporate entity, and the PCE as a rail line, had absolutely no future. The reasonable, skillful, managers saw this - and they "cashed out". Not sure where he gets the idea that the MILW had more capacity than the BNSF does today, but one thing's for sure: You don't get paid for your capacity, you get paid for the freight you haul. And the old MILW didn't have enough of that, and it never would have enouth freight with the BN to the North and the UP to the South. It was the 3rd railroad into the Pacific Northwest, and 3rd place doesn't pay well.
QUOTE: Originally posted by cornmaze The railroad was obviously broke.
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds The MILW as a corporate entity ... had absolutely no future.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds The MILW as a corporate entity ... had absolutely no future. "Absolutely" It became a fabulously profitable real estate investment company and although it has changed its name, exists today. It had a pretty good future, actually, as a "corporate entity." Another astute hitting of the mark.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by cornmaze The railroad was obviously broke. "Obviously." Hillman told Railway Age that "the Milwaukee is a relatively wealthy company." Railway Age, "MR: Assets set at $832 Million", January 8, 1979, p. 11. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173 So, the issues for it to have been viable in todays market would have been to have increased the siding lengths, convert to CTC, and have enough power to handle the freight. Well, the PCE had greater capacity in 1970 than the former GN, now BNSF, line has in 2006. Not sure what "viability" means in that context. Best regards, Michael Sol Give him a sentence to respond to and he'll write for a week. He's just got to show everybody how much he thinks he knows. IF the PCE had a positive cash flow, which in and of itself doesn't mean squat in terms of an ongoing business, it was because they were "cashing it out". When a business is failing, such as the Milwaukee Road was, the managers try to "cash it out". Get as much cash out of the business as possible before the bankruptcy court takes over. In the case of the MILW PCE this meant doing as little maintenance as was absolutely neccesary to run trains. If you don't replace ties and surface the track, you'll generate cash flow by eliminating maitenance expense. If you sell the copper wire you'll generate cash, and the diesels you replace those no resale value electric locomotives with can easily be returned to their lessor or sold off for cash (unlike the electrics, which at best, had scrap value). The MILW as a corporate entity, and the PCE as a rail line, had absolutely no future. The reasonable, skillful, managers saw this - and they "cashed out". Not sure where he gets the idea that the MILW had more capacity than the BNSF does today, but one thing's for sure: You don't get paid for your capacity, you get paid for the freight you haul. And the old MILW didn't have enough of that, and it never would have enouth freight with the BN to the North and the UP to the South. It was the 3rd railroad into the Pacific Northwest, and 3rd place doesn't pay well.
QUOTE: Originally posted by CMSTPP QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173 So, the issues for it to have been viable in todays market would have been to have increased the siding lengths, convert to CTC, and have enough power to handle the freight. Well, the PCE had greater capacity in 1970 than the former GN, now BNSF, line has in 2006. Not sure what "viability" means in that context. Best regards, Michael Sol Give him a sentence to respond to and he'll write for a week. He's just got to show everybody how much he thinks he knows. IF the PCE had a positive cash flow, which in and of itself doesn't mean squat in terms of an ongoing business, it was because they were "cashing it out". When a business is failing, such as the Milwaukee Road was, the managers try to "cash it out". Get as much cash out of the business as possible before the bankruptcy court takes over. In the case of the MILW PCE this meant doing as little maintenance as was absolutely neccesary to run trains. If you don't replace ties and surface the track, you'll generate cash flow by eliminating maitenance expense. If you sell the copper wire you'll generate cash, and the diesels you replace those no resale value electric locomotives with can easily be returned to their lessor or sold off for cash (unlike the electrics, which at best, had scrap value). The MILW as a corporate entity, and the PCE as a rail line, had absolutely no future. The reasonable, skillful, managers saw this - and they "cashed out". Not sure where he gets the idea that the MILW had more capacity than the BNSF does today, but one thing's for sure: You don't get paid for your capacity, you get paid for the freight you haul. And the old MILW didn't have enough of that, and it never would have enouth freight with the BN to the North and the UP to the South. It was the 3rd railroad into the Pacific Northwest, and 3rd place doesn't pay well. First of all, Michael knows allot about the milwaukee road and he is forunate enough to have been around the milwaukee road as long as he did. Second don't come around here talking crap like those electrics were only scrap, because they weren't. If you had read up on the milwaukee road and had as much knowledge as Michael did you wouldn't be saying that. Third the electrics have more power and tractive effort than your little diesel locomotives. Don't come to our little forum if your going to be an idiot. We had a nice chat on the milwaukee. Now please take your opinions to other forums. We don't need them here. You should probably look at what Michael has to say. I think it is quite informative and I can learn much from it. So don't be a smart *** about it. James
QUOTE: Originally posted by cornmaze QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by cornmaze The railroad was obviously broke. "Obviously." Hillman told Railway Age that "the Milwaukee is a relatively wealthy company." Railway Age, "MR: Assets set at $832 Million", January 8, 1979, p. 11. Best regards, Michael Sol It went bankrupt. Yes, "obviously" it was broke. By definition it was broke. Mr Hillman was looking at the liquidation value (assets = $832 M). That's different from having no cash.
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds Michael, please read what I wrote. I wrote "the MILW". MILW was the reporting mark for the railroad and that's what anyone with common sense would know I was writing about.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.