kenneo wrote:I think that the route that would have been used is South along what is now Hwy US 287 to nearly to Sweetwater Crossing and then back up the River to South Pass. Following the highway out of Lander straight to the Pass along Hwy 28 would have imposed a crossing of the Wind River Mountains about 2,000 feet higher than South Pass near the iron Mine, and then back up over South Pass. There is a route from the Cowboy via Sand Springs, passing a bit northeast of Sweetwater Crossing, up the river to South Pass, across the pass and then following the ridgeline northwest past Buckskin Crossing, Big Sandy, Boulder, Pinedale, Bondurant, Hoback Jct, down the Snake to Swan Valley, Lorenzo, up the hill to the Lemhi Valley via Leadore to Salmon, or at Swan Valley, turn southeast to Idaho Falls and follow to Snake around through southern Idaho instead of cutting across the state via the Lemhi/Salmon alignment back to the Snake. Either way would be doable at 1%. You can get a grade that is operable out of Lander over the Wind River Mountains, but as D R Busse said, it would have been spectacular and totally avoidable.
I think that the route that would have been used is South along what is now Hwy US 287 to nearly to Sweetwater Crossing and then back up the River to South Pass. Following the highway out of Lander straight to the Pass along Hwy 28 would have imposed a crossing of the Wind River Mountains about 2,000 feet higher than South Pass near the iron Mine, and then back up over South Pass.
There is a route from the Cowboy via Sand Springs, passing a bit northeast of Sweetwater Crossing, up the river to South Pass, across the pass and then following the ridgeline northwest past Buckskin Crossing, Big Sandy, Boulder, Pinedale, Bondurant, Hoback Jct, down the Snake to Swan Valley, Lorenzo, up the hill to the Lemhi Valley via Leadore to Salmon, or at Swan Valley, turn southeast to Idaho Falls and follow to Snake around through southern Idaho instead of cutting across the state via the Lemhi/Salmon alignment back to the Snake. Either way would be doable at 1%. You can get a grade that is operable out of Lander over the Wind River Mountains, but as D R Busse said, it would have been spectacular and totally avoidable.
RJ
"Something hidden, Go and find it. Go and look behind the ranges, Something lost behind the ranges. Lost and waiting for you. Go." The Explorers - Rudyard Kipling
http://sweetwater-photography.com/
chad thomas wrote:Interesting, I didn't know the EP&SW was afiliated with the Rock. The only problem with hooking up wth the SD&A was it was financed by the SP when Spreckles got in over his head. At first the financeing was secret. If I recall it wasn't till Spreckles died that that info became public.
Interesting, I didn't know the EP&SW was afiliated with the Rock. The only problem with hooking up wth the SD&A was it was financed by the SP when Spreckles got in over his head. At first the financeing was secret. If I recall it wasn't till Spreckles died that that info became public.
abcraghead wrote:. WARNING! Speculation alert! See below: The biggest applecart upsetting that a completed Oregon Pacific to Ontario might have accomplished is that the UP might have chosen to become involved with it, rather than with the OR&N, which would have likley left the OR&N in NP hands, and possibly prevented the construction of NP on Stampede Pass, and might have resulted in the north bank being occuppoed by either Milwaukee, or by the GN on it's own, rather than the jointly owned (with NP) SP&S.
The sole reason that the NP built North from Pasco and over Stampede pass was precisely that the UP had taken over control of the ORN and was depriving the NP of its friendly connection. The "original" NP line from Pasco to Seattle was a bridge arrangement between Pasco and Portland over the ORN (ORN did the work with ORN engines and crews) and then NP on down the Columbia to Goble where there was a ferry across the river to Kalama, and then on to Longview and North. The ferry remained until 1906 when the SPS opened their Willammette and Columbia Draw Spans and both the NP and the UP gained trackage rights through Vancouver. The GN also started running into Portland about then as well. The UP owned a large part of the ROW between Vancouver Jct and Kalama and the NP needed it so that is how the UP got its rights over the bridge.
The line that eventually became the UP's Burns Branch, started out life as a State of Oregon MANDATED line that was to go from Ontario, via Bend and LaPine to Eugene. It was the CNW survey that got that little charade started. The UP was building South into Bend up the Deschetes River and didn't want two lines into Bend. The Oregon Eastern (Burns Branch) got as far as Burns.
The UP dug its heals in all the way with that line and shed it as quickly as they could. From LaPine, it had a choice of routes (Crane Prarie and the North Fork of the Willammette or to Chemult and the Natron Cutoff) that joined at West Fir. The OP route via Hogg Pass was fine until you got to Idanha and from there to Black Butte (the Oregon Black Butte near Sisters) it would have been a railroad worthy of Donner with two summits (Hogg (now known as North Santiam Oregon 22) and Santiam (now known as South Santiam US 20).
Coos Bay is the better port than Newport. Much better harbor and bar crossing and there is sufficient waterfront to have become as big as Seattle, San Francisco/Oakland or Los Angeles/Long Beach. Had Coos Bay got its railroad sooner and been properly promoted, "it could have been a contender". Even without promotion, Coos Bay handles ocean-going ships destined to the Far East. In the late 1960's and early 1970's, I was the drawbridge tender at North Bend (Coos Bay Bridge) and it was normal to have 3 to 5 ships per shift transit the draw. We had six trains a day (3 each way). Not that way now!
erikem wrote:Reminds me that another Granger was trying to get a Pacific coast line - the Rock Island via the El Paso and Southwestern. At one time there was discussion in hooking up the San Diego and Arizona with the EP&SW, which hooked up with the RI in Tucumcari.
I didn't really mean any one in particular-I think more than one was being discussed. Though, since I'm not that familiar with the area, I'd have to dig out a bunch of topo maps and trace things out. Even then, I really don't know that part of the country that much to be able to see the +/-'s of the proposed routes (grades, potential traffic, etc.). Hmmm-maybe an article instead of just a map? Maybe a collector's edition? Maybe I better calm down?
abcraghead wrote:Kevin Smith wrote: >Add the discussion on the recent MILW thread about a possible alternate crossing of the Divide Assume youa referring to Lolo Pass over the Bitterroots, to Lewiston ID and the Snake River drainage?
James, Brisbane Australia
Modelling AT&SF in the 90s
Or to put it another way.........
How about a poker metaphor?
The retrenchment of the Milwaukee from a finely engineered transcon back into a regional granger is akin to a poker player having 4 aces but trading them in for a pair of dueces.
Of course, CNW never even anted up for transcon poker!
n012944 wrote: futuremodal wrote: n012944 wrote: futuremodal wrote: <> However, as the saying goes "he who hesitates is lost". All the railroads that chose to remain (or revert, in the case of the Milwaukee) as granger lines are no longer with us, while all the transcons but the Milwaukee are still around today. The SP transcon is still here, the SF transcon is still here, the WP/D&RGW transcon is still here, the UP transcon is still here, the NP transcon is still here, the GN transcon is still here, the CP transcon is still here, the CN transcon is still here. Only the grangers are gone. I don't understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that they only railroads still with us are the western transcons? While there are no longer any of the midwest railroads around in unmerged form, neither are 5 of the 8 you listed above. The majority of the MAIN lines in granger country are still with us today too, so what is your point? The railroad corporations with the transcons are the ones that took over the grangers. There was never a case of a predominately granger railroad taking over a transcon. Again what is your point? Are you saying the bigger fish swallows the little fish(with the exception of the Rio Grande/SP)? No kidding!! To say that the CNW would have been better off as a transcon because the bigger fish takes over the little fish is nuts. As has been pointed out elsewhere the last two transcons built, the MILW and WP where on shakey ground most of their lives. To say the CNW would have been any differnet, is wishful thinking..
futuremodal wrote: n012944 wrote: futuremodal wrote: <> However, as the saying goes "he who hesitates is lost". All the railroads that chose to remain (or revert, in the case of the Milwaukee) as granger lines are no longer with us, while all the transcons but the Milwaukee are still around today. The SP transcon is still here, the SF transcon is still here, the WP/D&RGW transcon is still here, the UP transcon is still here, the NP transcon is still here, the GN transcon is still here, the CP transcon is still here, the CN transcon is still here. Only the grangers are gone. I don't understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that they only railroads still with us are the western transcons? While there are no longer any of the midwest railroads around in unmerged form, neither are 5 of the 8 you listed above. The majority of the MAIN lines in granger country are still with us today too, so what is your point? The railroad corporations with the transcons are the ones that took over the grangers. There was never a case of a predominately granger railroad taking over a transcon.
n012944 wrote: futuremodal wrote: <> However, as the saying goes "he who hesitates is lost". All the railroads that chose to remain (or revert, in the case of the Milwaukee) as granger lines are no longer with us, while all the transcons but the Milwaukee are still around today. The SP transcon is still here, the SF transcon is still here, the WP/D&RGW transcon is still here, the UP transcon is still here, the NP transcon is still here, the GN transcon is still here, the CP transcon is still here, the CN transcon is still here. Only the grangers are gone. I don't understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that they only railroads still with us are the western transcons? While there are no longer any of the midwest railroads around in unmerged form, neither are 5 of the 8 you listed above. The majority of the MAIN lines in granger country are still with us today too, so what is your point?
futuremodal wrote: <> However, as the saying goes "he who hesitates is lost". All the railroads that chose to remain (or revert, in the case of the Milwaukee) as granger lines are no longer with us, while all the transcons but the Milwaukee are still around today. The SP transcon is still here, the SF transcon is still here, the WP/D&RGW transcon is still here, the UP transcon is still here, the NP transcon is still here, the GN transcon is still here, the CP transcon is still here, the CN transcon is still here. Only the grangers are gone.
I don't understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that they only railroads still with us are the western transcons? While there are no longer any of the midwest railroads around in unmerged form, neither are 5 of the 8 you listed above. The majority of the MAIN lines in granger country are still with us today too, so what is your point?
The railroad corporations with the transcons are the ones that took over the grangers. There was never a case of a predominately granger railroad taking over a transcon.
Again what is your point? Are you saying the bigger fish swallows the little fish(with the exception of the Rio Grande/SP)? No kidding!! To say that the CNW would have been better off as a transcon because the bigger fish takes over the little fish is nuts. As has been pointed out elsewhere the last two transcons built, the MILW and WP where on shakey ground most of their lives. To say the CNW would have been any differnet, is wishful thinking..
futuremodal wrote: n012944 wrote: futuremodal wrote: However, as the saying goes "he who hesitates is lost". All the railroads that chose to remain (or revert, in the case of the Milwaukee) as granger lines are no longer with us, while all the transcons but the Milwaukee are still around today. The SP transcon is still here, the SF transcon is still here, the WP/D&RGW transcon is still here, the UP transcon is still here, the NP transcon is still here, the GN transcon is still here, the CP transcon is still here, the CN transcon is still here. Only the grangers are gone. I don't understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that they only railroads still with us are the western transcons? While there are no longer any of the midwest railroads around in unmerged form, neither are 5 of the 8 you listed above. The majority of the MAIN lines in granger country are still with us today too, so what is your point? The railroad corporations with the transcons are the ones that took over the grangers. There was never a case of a predominately granger railroad taking over a transcon.
n012944 wrote: futuremodal wrote: However, as the saying goes "he who hesitates is lost". All the railroads that chose to remain (or revert, in the case of the Milwaukee) as granger lines are no longer with us, while all the transcons but the Milwaukee are still around today. The SP transcon is still here, the SF transcon is still here, the WP/D&RGW transcon is still here, the UP transcon is still here, the NP transcon is still here, the GN transcon is still here, the CP transcon is still here, the CN transcon is still here. Only the grangers are gone. I don't understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that they only railroads still with us are the western transcons? While there are no longer any of the midwest railroads around in unmerged form, neither are 5 of the 8 you listed above. The majority of the MAIN lines in granger country are still with us today too, so what is your point?
futuremodal wrote: However, as the saying goes "he who hesitates is lost". All the railroads that chose to remain (or revert, in the case of the Milwaukee) as granger lines are no longer with us, while all the transcons but the Milwaukee are still around today. The SP transcon is still here, the SF transcon is still here, the WP/D&RGW transcon is still here, the UP transcon is still here, the NP transcon is still here, the GN transcon is still here, the CP transcon is still here, the CN transcon is still here. Only the grangers are gone.
However, as the saying goes "he who hesitates is lost". All the railroads that chose to remain (or revert, in the case of the Milwaukee) as granger lines are no longer with us, while all the transcons but the Milwaukee are still around today. The SP transcon is still here, the SF transcon is still here, the WP/D&RGW transcon is still here, the UP transcon is still here, the NP transcon is still here, the GN transcon is still here, the CP transcon is still here, the CN transcon is still here. Only the grangers are gone.
Again what is your point? Are you saying the bigger fish swallows the little fish(with the exception of the Rio Grande/SP)? No kidding!! To say that the CNW would have been better off as a transcon because the bigger fish takes over the little fish is nuts. As has been pointed out elsewhere the last two transcons built, the MILW and WP where on shakey ground most of their lives. To say the CNW would have been any differnet than those two, in my opinion is wishful thinking.
Bert
An "expensive model collector"
Cast of characters from 1906:
Marvin Hughitt - President of the Northwestern who seemed to be riding the fence more that me in regards to PCE.
E.H. Harriman - President of the Union Pacific who encouraged the Northwestern to remain a grainger because he feared even a joint arrangement with the Northwestern would lead to more conflicts with...
James J. Hill - President of the Hill Lines
William K. Vanderbilt Northwestern Executive Committee / William Rockefeller Standard Oil Co (Milwaukee Road Exceutive Committee) - Had several conversations regarding a joint Northwestern / Milwaukee Rd PCE in 1906. Construction would extend from S Dakota (Rapid City) through Montana and Idaho to Tacoma/Seattle. The Northwestern backed off because "various forces undermined a joint agreement". Also, the estimated cost of "between $50 and $75 million" forced the Northwestern to back off.
"Stick to our knitting, develop this railroad in its present territory and let the Milwaukee build to the coast if it wants to"; Marving Hughitt. In a published report Hughitt wrote that his company would "remain the great local line which it is now."
Panic of 1907 - forced any further thoughts of a PCE to the back burner as railroads fell on hard times.
The Milwaukee Road finished their PCE at Garrison, Montana on May 14, 1909. From a book named the Milwaukee Road by Derleth (only name given), the Milwaukee "experienced immediate and long-term economic problems".
Information and quotes for this post were pulled from The Northwestern by Roger Grant.
CC
Murphy Siding wrote: futuremodal wrote: You cannot judge what a CNW transcon would have amounted to based on the simpleton's analysis of the Milwaukee PCE retrenchment. . (Shrugs) Not any more than you can judge what a CNW transcon would have amounted to based on the simpleton's dream of "If they had built it, they would have come". The fact that they explored the idea, but didn't act, might be an indication that at least some thought it wasn't viable?
futuremodal wrote: You cannot judge what a CNW transcon would have amounted to based on the simpleton's analysis of the Milwaukee PCE retrenchment. .
(Shrugs) Not any more than you can judge what a CNW transcon would have amounted to based on the simpleton's dream of "If they had built it, they would have come". The fact that they explored the idea, but didn't act, might be an indication that at least some thought it wasn't viable?
No one, not even the forum simpletons, has said "If they had built it, they would have come" (a sentence which doesn't even make a parse's worth of sense - if they had built it, they'd already be there!). The fact that CNW never built a transcon doesn't mean it wasn't "viable", it just means they didn't have the kahunas to try.
With 7 (count them, 7!) transcon routes still alive and kicking today, why would one assume the lesser likelyhood and claim that another transcon would have ended up like the one (1) and only case as presented by the Milwaukee's transcon?
CNW minimized itself as a granger line and a bridge line for UP. One reason they needed UP to finance the PRB expansion was that they didn't have a transcon to bring in the necessary revenues to finance a PRB expansion themselves. Their die was cast when they chose not to go coastal.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.