What happen to Milwaukee Road?

[Anonymous]

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(]

[Anonymous]

Hi,
I traveled on the I-90 west from Livingston, MT to Seattle in 2003, and saw many stretches of what I believe used to be Milwaukee Road Right of Way used as Bicycle paths, what a shame. I also saw some abandoned ( and obviously Railroad ) bridges in the distance with what looked like supports for the former catenary wires still on them. I travel a lot and always look for abandoned rail lines, since there are a lot of them, and just about want to cry. I guess the next major bike path project is going to be Tennessee Pass. I was lucky to see that in 1996 or 1997 with trains still going over it, just before they ceased operations. In my humble opinion the abandonment of Tennessee Pass was a stupid idea by S.P., as was the abandonment of the Valley Line in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles.
Harry Kutzbach, Train Nut
Simi Valley, CA , [e-mail]

[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).

[MichaelSol]

From an 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 Union Pacific is now a most active and aggressive competitor in all the valuable territory, Portland to Seattle inclusive and in the productive lumber regions of Gray's Harbor and South Bend; also all through the fertile Yakima Valley, the Walla Walla country; the Clearwater region, the Camas Prairie, the Palouse country, at Spokane, the Coeur d'Alene mining district, Butte, and the Yellowstone Park. Much of this territory, not so many years ago, was served almost exclusively by the Northern Pacific. The Union Pacific, with its very unusual earnings has a definite and announced policy of liberality to the shipping and traveling public in the way of good service, adequate supply of modern equipment, both freight and passenger, fast time and very active solicitation and adverting. The class of passenger equipment furnished by that company between Chicago and the Missouri River and Portland and Puget Sound is superior to that furnished by the Northern Pacific. It is generally understood that this company will put on improved passenger trains between Chicago and Puget Sound in the spring of 1921.

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.

The Great Northern, by some of its alternate lines in North Dakota, is cutting the earnings of some of the Northern Pacific branch lines in that state; through the building of the SP&S, competition is increased to the Northern Pacific in some of the Palouse territory and in Portland. By use of the Northern Pacific line between Seattle and Portland, the Great Northern also subdivides the business of the fertile Puyallup Valley and of the territory Tacoma to Portland, inclusive.

North of Seattle to Vancouver, B.C., inclusive, the territory is sharply competitive all or in part with the Great Northern, [St. Paul], and the Canadian Pacific.
...

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

The 800 lb gorilla was the "New York Dock" conditions available for terminated employees.

I understand about the "New York Dock" decision. I have delt with it both from Labor and Management. I also know that there are methods of satisfying its requirements and still get done what needs to be done. Was the MILW's management so dense to its workings that they couldn't chart a way through it?

That too was where the bankruptcy court came in, although I got the distinct impression that the management that was planning its way through the bankrupcy was caught by surprise. I've got the memo that came over the company teletype that basically says, "oops, we just noticed that under the New York Dock conditions, Milwaukee Road will owe approximately $1.0 billion to its laid off workers on Lines West." The whole railroad was worth about $900 million at the time. This was the irony of the situation, they took a railroad company with a cash shortfall, and created an insurmountable "debt".

The labor protective conditions of this settlement also applied to the employee's of The Milwaukee Road who had lost their jobs due to the abandonment of the various segments of the railroad. For anyone who maybe interested in it, it is
covered by the I.C.C. decision Finance Docket No. 28250 - New York Dock Railway - Control - Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal - decided February 9, 1979 - Appendix lll Labor Protective Conditions. It provided the formula, with reference to the Washington Job Protection Agreement of May 1936, for the payment of the dismissal allowance.

Approximately 66 Milwaukee Road employees opted for the New York Dock protections, which ultimately were paid. The highest I am aware of paid out about $200,000 including interest. The remainder of the 8,000 employees ultimately laid off were made an offer from Congress in the form of the Milwaukee Railroad Restructuring Act which offered up to $25,000 (I think it was $2,000 per year of service up to the limit), which was payable now, from federal funds, rather than until the money was freed up by the bankruptcy court which ultimately took a while. People with 20, 30, 40 years of seniority got $25,000.

The New York Dock recipients also kept other union benefits as well.

The potential under the New York Dock provisions were devastating and yet it was almost an afterthought to the Lines West abandonment proposal that the Milwaukee might be liable for that payout.

[n012944]

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.

Because its a fanatsy created by the conspiracy theorist on this board, and people trying to hold on to something that was not there in the first place.


Bert

[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.

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

The 800 lb gorilla was the "New York Dock" conditions available for terminated employees.

I understand about the "New York Dock" decision. I have delt with it both from Labor and Management. I also know that there are methods of satisfying its requirements and still get done what needs to be done. Was the MILW's management so dense to its workings that they couldn't chart a way through it?

The "Transcontinental Group" which comprised all of those having a significant financial or service intrest in the MILW, by the general provisions of bankruptcy law, should have prevailed. They were the ones owed the money, and that is the group that almost always controls such doings. I guess I am having a hard time understanding just how this group could or would permit the railroad going to anyone else but themselves. What in the world were they thinking?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol
The Milwaukee Road bankruptcy filing was unnecessary. It's CEO at the time has specifically told me: "if certain board members had done their jobs, we could have avoided that bankruptcy." The CMC Board at that point included very powerful ownerships that saw the liquidation value of the railroad as being extraordinary compared to the operating value of any railroad property. However, the only way to get there was through a court proceeding -- no regulatory proceeding would yield the results they wanted.

When the ICC considered the first reorganization plans, both the Trustee and the NewMil group presented their plans. The Trustee's plan [the so-called Milwaukee II] was unsupported. The NewMil (transcontinental) plan was supported by Milwaukee creditors, the Milwaukee's bankers, and shippers in general. The ICC also preferred it.

CMC jumped in and offered its own preferred alternative: complete liquidation of the railroad. It became clear what they had been looking for.

Michael -- since the CMC could have sold the railroad for the same net as the bankruptcy and abandonment, why did they insist on pushing the course that they did. Money is money and $5 of my US money is the same value as $5 of your US printed money.

In 1975, they were willing to sell the whole shebang to the BN for about $90 million, then demanded the "fair market value" of $360 million appealing from Judge McMillen's decision to approve a sale to the lower bidder Soo Line in 1984. Without the bankruptcy, they were under the jurisdiction of the ICC, and the ICC was incredibly unlikely to approve liquidation of over half the system without the provocation of a bankruptcy proceeding.

The 800 lb gorilla was the "New York Dock" conditions available for terminated employees.

[greyhounds]

North American Ports 2005 container business

www.aapa-ports.org/pdf/2005_NORTH_AMERICAN_CONTAINER_TRAFFIC.pdf

[Kevin C. Smith]

Michael-wandering off topic (or at least going back several pages). If you have current Port of Seattle & Tacoma traffic figures not too far away, I was curious (in a "what might have been" way): assuming that the MILW had survived and maintained their share of the traffic from those ports, what kind of traffic/tonnage would we have over the PCE today?

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol
The Milwaukee Road bankruptcy filing was unnecessary. It's CEO at the time has specifically told me: "if certain board members had done their jobs, we could have avoided that bankruptcy." The CMC Board at that point included very powerful ownerships that saw the liquidation value of the railroad as being extraordinary compared to the operating value of any railroad property. However, the only way to get there was through a court proceeding -- no regulatory proceeding would yield the results they wanted.

When the ICC considered the first reorganization plans, both the Trustee and the NewMil group presented their plans. The Trustee's plan [the so-called Milwaukee II] was unsupported. The NewMil (transcontinental) plan was supported by Milwaukee creditors, the Milwaukee's bankers, and shippers in general. The ICC also preferred it.

CMC jumped in and offered its own preferred alternative: complete liquidation of the railroad. It became clear what they had been looking for.

Michael -- since the CMC could have sold the railroad for the same net as the bankruptcy and abandonment, why did they insist on pushing the course that they did. Money is money and $5 of my US money is the same value as $5 of your US printed money.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by NW_611
"Can it be unequivocally stated that the actions of the Chicago Milwaukee Corporation in the late 1970s were bad for, if not fatal to, the operational survival of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad as a going concern?"

The ICC did a study on holding companies and their effect on their railroad subsidiaries, and while the study was not an exemplary example of such a study [on the Milwaukee, their investigation completely missed a couple of key transactions], they did find that in general, railroads owned by holding companies had a lower rate of return than independent railroads.

That being said, when the general rate of return for railroads got down into the 1 and 2% range, naturally the railroads owned by holding companies were certainly the first to "go".

The Milwaukee Road bankruptcy filing was unnecessary. It's CEO at the time has specifically told me: "if certain board members had done their jobs, we could have avoided that bankruptcy." The CMC Board at that point included very powerful ownerships that saw the liquidation value of the railroad as being extraordinary compared to the operating value of any railroad property. However, the only way to get there was through a court proceeding -- no regulatory proceeding would yield the results they wanted.

When the ICC considered the first reorganization plans, both the Trustee and the NewMil group presented their plans. The Trustee's plan [the so-called Milwaukee II] was unsupported. The NewMil (transcontinental) plan was supported by Milwaukee creditors, the Milwaukee's bankers, and shippers in general. The ICC also preferred it.

CMC jumped in and offered its own preferred alternative: complete liquidation of the railroad. It became clear what they had been looking for.

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

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]

Why not ask arbfbe? He's the one who posted the bad link not Ken. [?] [%-)] The only thing it means when it is highlighted in red is that it begins with http://www. not that it works? [?]

The page was removed. Others were able to access it for a time after it was posted.

Ken's articles are still there, but attribution has been removed.

[rrandb]

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]

Why not ask arbfbe? He's the one who posted the bad link not Ken. [?] [%-)] The only thing it means when it is highlighted in red is that it begins with http://www. not that it works? [?]

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

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

I want the *** apology. The GRA was (is?) basically a group of racing fans. It had (has?)(has?) absolutely no official status vis a vis racing and neither did I. (other than as a licensed owner.) I haven't belonged for quite some time. Do you understand verb tense?

I think it's a nice picture of me though.

But, next time you want to get into my personal life you better GD have the facts right.

Ken Strawbridge

Temper temper watch your language and ***'s

[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]

[rrandb]

After 25 pages I'm more confused than when I started. That said its hard to embargo a railroad and blame it on exemplery managment. [B)] [%-)]

[NW_611]

I don't know from dog racing, aside from a trip to the West Virginia facility a while back, of which I understood little. Furthermore, none of my education's in math, so most of the economic arguments zip right past me as if I were a lowly local stop on the route of the Broadway Limited. Thus, my MILW-related question:

"Can it be unequivocally stated that the actions of the Chicago Milwaukee Corporation in the late 1970s were bad for, if not fatal to, the operational survival of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad as a going concern?"

Detailed economic analyses will probably be wasted on me, since I'm not Milton Friedman. I appreciate their production but they might as well be kabuki for all I can derive from them. Thanks for any replies.

[nsconcord]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

Most of the Milwaukie Road's track is still in use. BNSF and IC&E each have over 1100 miles of it. CN (200 miles), CP (600 miles) and Wisconsin and Southern (500 miles) and about 20 other railroads use CMSP&P track as well.

The Milwaukee Road east from Butte used Pipestone Pass and the rails are gone. The NP used Homestake and the rails are still in place and the line is railbanked.

Milwaukee Road thread-
http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=22066

The other one-
http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=22188

Milwaukee remains in Montana-
http://webhome.idirect.com/~helmutw/milwrd/xmont/montmain/montmain.html

Coast Division-
http://www.wwvrailway.com/milwauke.htm

This is a 16 page booklet of CMSP&P history. http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=102049
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=102051
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=102052
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=102053
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=102054
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=102056
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=102057
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=102058
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=102059
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=102060
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=102061
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=102062
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=102063
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=102064
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=102065
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=102066
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=102067
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=102068
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=102050
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=102048


http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=44086

[rrandb]

I do not think most people mind the confrontational part, but the operative word is Milwaukee Road? [?]

[MP173]

cant wait to read it. Be sure and inform us the book title and the publisher.

Glad i withdrew from this discussion.

ed

[MichaelSol]

Well, there are people who had nothing to do with Milwaukee Road, plainly know nothing about it and show up, thread after thread, with their same mendacious remarks about it. It's pathological, it doesn't happen with any other railroad. And it's the same two or three people, time after time. One of them, it seems, has used the same tactics elsewhere.

For me, I have to go write a foreward to an upcoming Milwaukee Road history this weekend, so ce' la vie.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

These MILW threads are unmiformally bizare.

I guess no one wants a nonconfrontational Milwaukee Road thread?[:0][B)]

[bobwilcox]

These MILW threads are unmiformally bizare.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
To be "accused" is nothing. Anyone can "accuse" anyone else. Only someone devoid of reason and facts would use an "accusation" to further thier argument.

Just as you "accused" me, without a shred of proof, of having a personal political agenda, and having contributed to Brian Schweitzer's campaign.

You don't mind personal attacks and accusations when you are the one doing it. Just this evening, on an adjacent thread, you attacked my personal honesty and my integrity, simply because I am arguing a market theory aspect of rate making. Yeah, that's pretty personal. And irrational.

That's the point of that letter regarding your PUBLIC remarks as a NATIONAL spokesman. It's consistent with how you "discuss" railroading and how you attack people, not discuss railroading.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

I have no extended justification to argue about any role in any greyhound organization; greyhounds is obviously sensitive about it and is making an issue of it, after having evaded a short comment about it and turning it, instead, into some big macho "apology demand" situation which caused a real railroader, arbfbe, to withdraw from this forum. And it's not "personal" when someone is a NATIONAL SPOKESMAN. The point, however, goes to credibility -- he has been accused of using the identical tactics in other forums.

To be "accused" is nothing. Anyone can "accuse" anyone else. Only someone devoid of reason and facts would use an "accusation" to further thier argument.

Sol has done that.

Get the Hell out of my personal life! Now!

Ken Strawbridge

[MichaelSol]

I agree, I have no interest in hearing about rationalizations about greyhound puppies and their treatment. That whole debate disgusts me. I don't want to hear the details. Greyhounds is obviously sensitive about something there and is making an issue of it, after having evaded a short comment about it and turning it, instead, into some big macho "apology demand" situation which caused a real railroader, arbfbe, to withdraw from this forum.

And it's not "personal" when someone was a NATIONAL SPOKESMAN. The point, however, goes to credibility -- he has been accused of using the identical tactics in other forums, that is, personally attacking people and attempting to "humiliate" them. Doesn't sound like reasonable and rational discussion methods to me.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Just as I have always felt my personal life and career was none of your business, nor my political contributions, but you always made it fair game for your comments.

However, in this instance, a testimonial about how you argue in a national public position coincides exactly with how you argue about railroads.

The usual double standard from you, but an intriguing testimonial that has nothing to do with the substance of the dog debate, but explains that the manner of how you attack people on Trains forums has nothing to do with the substance of the discussion, but rather how you discuss things.

Yep! It's not my facts or reason, it's "How I Discuss Things". In that I dare disagree with
you. You can't refute my arguments, so you attack me personally.

Now, I'm saying this one last time, get out of my personal life on this board. Get out of it now!

Ken Strawbridge

[rrandb]

I have no qualms about asking "Bergie" to help you settle your pesonel discussions. Perhaps you should use E-mail or a private chat room if you can not stick to railroads and related issues. I have an 8 year old daughter who enjoys this forum and have no desire to explain mortality rates for puppies. If this continues I will inform the moderator. Thats not a threat but a promise. Theres a time and a place but this is not it. nuf said