eolafan wrote: Perhaps FM could manage to sway Rosie O'Donnell over from "the dark side".
Perhaps FM could manage to sway Rosie O'Donnell over from "the dark side".
Have fun with your trains
Futuremodal: "First you say the westbound approach to Elk Park Pass was 2.2%, now you admit it is a more gentler 1.1%. Sure, 1.1% is not 0%, but it's a heck of a lot more preferable for mainline operations (then and now) than that 2.2%. That coupled with the fact that the pass needed no summit tunnel makes it on par with Marias Pass. The difference of course is in the fact that, unlike JJ's approach to Marias using the ridgetops and the massive bridge over Two Medicine Creek, the Montana Central's builders decided to dip down into Boulder off the Prickly Pear Creek watershed via Amazon Tunnel, then followed the banks of Boulder River then the Bison Creek canyon to make it back to the more moderate gradient of the Elk Park basin, rather than maintaining a more constant elevation by keeping to the mountainsides. A perfect example of this technique would be the comparison of the Milwaukee and NP in the St. Regis River canyon farther west, where NP stayed close to the river while Milwaukee started using the mountainsides past Haugen."
________________
No, my position has not changed. The gradient through Elk Park proper is 1.1 percent, but the approach is still 2.2 percent. By using your "logic" all that matters is the immediate approach, without regard to the grade that is necessary to get to that immediate approach. Again, Soldier Summit is a perfect example. As for the Milwaukee and NP in the St. Regis River canyon west of Haugen, that is apples and oranges. The Milwaukee track was its main line, the NP line was a branch. Comparing main lines to main lines, the Milwaukee construction did little to ease the grade. It still was 1.7 percent, whereas, the NP route, though longer, never exceeded 1 percent from St. Regis to Spokane.
______________
Futuremodal: "Of course, for NP or Milwaukee there would have been no need for any tunnels like Amazon, since NP could have followed the Boulder River valley all the way, and Milwaukee could have cut across the Warm Springs Creek plateau between Lombard and the Boulder Valley.
And if one thinks about it (rather than a kneejerk response), the fact that both NP and Milwaukee could have (1) avoided the need for a summit tunnel (like they ended up having to do for Mullan and Pipestone respectively), (2) procured a gentler grade via the mountainsides of the Boulder Valley (at around 1% rather than their 2.2% and 1.9% respectively), and (3) avoided a lot of reverse curves in the process - such would have paid dividends for years for both railroads. And all that would cost them operationally would have been slightly longer mainlines."
Again: Shouldawouldacoulda. Anything is possible given unlimited resources. They also could have built a tunnel from Whitehall to Butte, but that wasn't in the budget, either. In the case of the NP, since more of the tonnage handled after the construction was eastward, Mullan Pass was a very good crossing (1.4 percent), and Helena was the territorial capital.
__________________________________________
Futuremodal: "I would venture that the major reason Milwaukee chose not to do so had more to do with GN already occupying Elk Park Pass, than any sophistric reasoning based on the Montana Central's chosen profile. Who knows what kind of legal wrenches JJ might have tried to throw at the Milwaukee should they have attempted that approach? As for NP, their charter limited grades to 2.2%, and they chose to test the max of the charter rather than having the foresight to keep gradients under the "helper district" degree. Remember, NP could have utilized Deer Lodge Pass but chose the shorter and steeper Mullan Pass route, and farther west in Washington they chose Stampede Pass over the gentler grades of Snoqualmie Pass. I doubt they even knew where Elk Park Pass was."
Well, given that the NP and Milwaukee were in spitting distance of one another for miles and miles across Montana, it is unlikely that the Milwaukee had a problem building near a preexisting rail line, and by the time the Milwaukee built, Elk Park was only a GN branch so I would doubt that the GN would have cared any more than it did about the construction the Pacific Extension of the MILW overall. In reality, not only would Elk Park Pass had been at least 2.2 percent westbound for the MILW, but it would have eastbound, too. As it was, Pipestone was 2.0 westbound and 1.66 eastbound....not great, but better than Elk Park, and it is well known that the Milwaukee also did not have unlimited resources, another very likely reason that it (and most) railroads built where they did. Your statement questioning whether NP even knew the existence of Elk Park Pass reminds me when you once stated on this very forum that you were the first to think of the right of way of the UP branch through Kahlotus to Connell could be used as an alternative to the SP&S line through Burr Canyon. Granted, that was a rare insight into the obvious on your part, but in reality, it is quite possible that others knew what they were doing and based their decisions on specific criteria and information available at the time. The Louis Tuck Renz's "Northern Pacific History" book states that NP Chief Engineer Milnor Roberts "had surveyed approximately 15 passes over the Continental Divide" (in this area) and that "he had eliminated all but Deer Lodge, Pipestone, and Mullan," It continues, "he favored Deer Lodge as it had easy approaches and no tunnel, but was longer." NP president Villard then sent Chief Engineer Adna Anderson to define the route over the divide, and the book continues, "He picked the Mullan Route which was forty miles shorter than Deer Lodge and had steep but short approaches on the East end and would require nearly a mile long tunnel. Also this route would pass through the capital city of Helena." Given that both Helena and Butte were around for about 20 years prior to the arrival of the NP, and that there was much mineral exploration activity in the area during this time, and given the text from the book stated above, I would give the chances of the NP not knowing about Elk Park as zero, but there is probably a 100 percent chance both the NP and Milwaukee built where they did for valid reasons, at least during that time.
Mark Meyer
vsmith wrote: eolafan wrote: Perhaps FM could manage to sway Rosie O'Donnell over from "the dark side".
Some people are better left where they are.
Mark,
First of all, let me say that I appreciate the tone of your latest response, very professional.
Now back to some points made.....
On the GN Boulder River gradient vs the Milwaukee's and NP's St. Regis River gradients - the purpose of that comparison is to show that a westbound Elk Park Pass line could have avoided the steeper gradient. Both the GN along Boulder River and the NP along the St. Regis River closely followed the watercourse. The Milwaukee started their dedicated St. Paul Pass grade prematurely in a way, prefering to access the mountainsides and a 1.7% grade to reach the east portal of St. Paul Pass, rather than staying along the river like the NP did with a 0.8% grade only to have to start a steeper grade as their respective passes were reached. Remember also that at one time the NP considered using Lookout Pass (just a few miles away from St. Paul Pass) as a mainline if the proposed tunnel were ever built, which would have reduced the ruling grade from 4% to 2.2%, so it's not necessarily an apples and oranges comparison.
The bottom line - both NP and Milwaukee could have used Elk Park Pass and kept the westbound grades under 2.0% if they had chosen. The eastbound grades may still have been over 2.0% if it was determined to build down into Butte proper, rather than bypassing Butte by staying along the mountainsides with a more gradual grade down to Deer Lodge. Yes, that type of eastbound grade was steeper than Mullan's eastbound grade of 1.4%, but therein lies my original point of using Mullan eastbound and Elk Park westbound in modern times with the appropriate line adjustments to correct the inherent flaws of the original construction.
Remember also that Pipestone Pass proper is about 100' higher in elevation than Elk Park Pass, so the argument that the Milwaukee would have experienced steeper grades over Elk Park than Pipestone doesn't wash. As I stated before, Milwaukee could have cut across the Warm Springs Creek plateau straight west from Lombard to the Boulder Valley, then accessed the mountainsides on the south side of the valley to keep the ruling grade under 2.0%. Milwaukee's Pipestone Pass line didn't even enter Butte proper, reaching into Butte with a short spur line, so it seems to have not been an overriding factor to dip down into Butte if the Elk Park Pass route had been chosen. Thus, it is very likely the Milwaukee could have had a CD crossing with no summit tunnel, grades at least as good as the 1.66% eastbound and under 2.0% westbound, less approach curvature, and no increase in transcon mileage.
Since Elk Park Pass is actually lower than Pipestone, there is no logic to assume a Milwaukee line over Elk Park Pass to have 2.2% grades both ways compared to Pipestone's 1.66% and 2.0%.
Why the railroad management chose the routes they did is purely subjective - no one was perfect in their choice of alignments, not even JJ Hill. Why did GN choose Stevens Pass over the known Snoqualmie Pass? Why did the Milwaukee choose to cross the Columbia at Beverly (with the subsequent need for a 2.2% westbound grade to reach the Kittitas Valley) rather than farther south near White Bluffs, which would have allowed a gentler grade over the Saddles?
Why did NP chose Mullan over Deer Lodge, Pipestone, or any other pass? It would appear that the necessary construction techniques to allow a well engineered mountainside grade were not as apparent then as they were a few decades later when the Milwaukee came calling. Even so, if indeed Elk Park Pass was a known quantity then someone must have thought a line through Helena was of greater concern than a line without the need of a summit tunnel.
To assume an infallibility of the made choices is not a reasonable approach. Those folks were obviously very fallible much if not most of the time.
Back to modern times, as Gabe stated in his topic starter, there is a logic to analyzing which lost routes today would prove valuable if the forefathers of railroading had the necessary vision. For a line through the heart of Montana, Mullan strictly eastbound and Elk Park strictly westbound (with a few miles of realigments, not as originally built) makes sense. One needs only to watch a westbound MRL freight try to tackle Mullan's 2.2% grade, the two reverse curves, and the engine choking tunnel to realize that such things still have a lot of room for improvement.
futuremodal wrote: Remember also that Pipestone Pass proper is about 100' higher in elevation than Elk Park Pass, so the argument that the Milwaukee would have experienced steeper grades over Elk Park than Pipestone doesn't wash. Since Elk Park Pass is actually lower than Pipestone, there is no logic to assume a Milwaukee line over Elk Park Pass to have 2.2% grades both ways compared to Pipestone's 1.66% and 2.0%.
Remember also that Pipestone Pass proper is about 100' higher in elevation than Elk Park Pass, so the argument that the Milwaukee would have experienced steeper grades over Elk Park than Pipestone doesn't wash.
I believe the line at Elk Park was higher than Pipestone-
6,360' -Elk Park Pass, 6,347' -Pipestone Pass, 6,328' -Homestake Pass
The milwaukee road.
I wish I could have seen more of it than I have. I see a few locomotives here and there, but not as much anymore.
This is one railroad I wish was still around.
Happy railroading
James
nanaimo73 wrote: futuremodal wrote: Remember also that Pipestone Pass proper is about 100' higher in elevation than Elk Park Pass, so the argument that the Milwaukee would have experienced steeper grades over Elk Park than Pipestone doesn't wash. Since Elk Park Pass is actually lower than Pipestone, there is no logic to assume a Milwaukee line over Elk Park Pass to have 2.2% grades both ways compared to Pipestone's 1.66% and 2.0%. I believe the line at Elk Park was higher than Pipestone-6,360' -Elk Park Pass, 6,347' -Pipestone Pass, 6,328' -Homestake Pass
Elk Park Pass proper is actually lower than Pipestone. The summit tunnel for the line across Pipestone makes the Milwaukee line slightly lower than the GN line over Elk Park.
From the highway atlas:
Elk Park - 6368'
Pipestone - 6453'
futuremodal wrote: nanaimo73 wrote: futuremodal wrote: Remember also that Pipestone Pass proper is about 100' higher in elevation than Elk Park Pass, so the argument that the Milwaukee would have experienced steeper grades over Elk Park than Pipestone doesn't wash. Since Elk Park Pass is actually lower than Pipestone, there is no logic to assume a Milwaukee line over Elk Park Pass to have 2.2% grades both ways compared to Pipestone's 1.66% and 2.0%. I believe the line at Elk Park was higher than Pipestone-6,360' -Elk Park Pass, 6,347' -Pipestone Pass, 6,328' -Homestake Pass Elk Park Pass proper is actually lower than Pipestone. The summit tunnel for the line across Pipestone makes the Milwaukee line slightly lower than the GN line over Elk Park.From the highway atlas: Elk Park - 6368'Pipestone - 6453'
But Nanaimo's premise is still valid. Homestake is lower than them both, so therefore should have had the best gradient, but it didn't. It was just as bad as Elk Park, and Pipestone was better. And like Elk Park, Homestake didn't require a tunnel on top. The reality is that other factors were likely involved such as: The MILW over Pipestone was built later than the NP over Homestake, so engineering and construction techniques were more advanced; or, that the NP main freight route was through Helena (where Mullan Pass had only a 1.4 percent grade eastbound), so they didn't feel the need to expend extra capital when a superior alternative route was already in place, whereas for the Milwaukee, this was their lone crossing of the Divide, and it benefitted them to make the grade as slight as possible.
VerMontanan wrote: futuremodal wrote: nanaimo73 wrote: futuremodal wrote: Remember also that Pipestone Pass proper is about 100' higher in elevation than Elk Park Pass, so the argument that the Milwaukee would have experienced steeper grades over Elk Park than Pipestone doesn't wash. Since Elk Park Pass is actually lower than Pipestone, there is no logic to assume a Milwaukee line over Elk Park Pass to have 2.2% grades both ways compared to Pipestone's 1.66% and 2.0%. I believe the line at Elk Park was higher than Pipestone-6,360' -Elk Park Pass, 6,347' -Pipestone Pass, 6,328' -Homestake Pass Elk Park Pass proper is actually lower than Pipestone. The summit tunnel for the line across Pipestone makes the Milwaukee line slightly lower than the GN line over Elk Park.From the highway atlas: Elk Park - 6368'Pipestone - 6453' But Nanaimo's premise is still valid. Homestake is lower than them both, so therefore should have had the best gradient, but it didn't. It was just as bad as Elk Park, and Pipestone was better. And like Elk Park, Homestake didn't require a tunnel on top. The reality is that other factors were likely involved such as: The MILW over Pipestone was built later than the NP over Homestake, so engineering and construction techniques were more advanced; or, that the NP main freight route was through Helena (where Mullan Pass had only a 1.4 percent grade eastbound), so they didn't feel the need to expend extra capital when a superior alternative route was already in place, whereas for the Milwaukee, this was their lone crossing of the Divide, and it benefitted them to make the grade as slight as possible.
Homestake has a very rough geology on it's eastside (as witnessed by the overabundance of curvature and the multitude of mini-tunnels along the present embargoed line), whereas Elk Park has that nice long straight valley to the summit out of the river canyon. Clearly, Homestake is much worse than Elk Park and the rest from a difficulty perspective.
BTW - As for the "what if" aspects, that is the whole premise of the topic.
Well, I'm from west of the 100th (Meridian). One of the dumbest moves ever made, businesswise, was the elimination of the second mainline on the well known "Joint Line" in Colorado between Palmer Lake and Fountain back in 1971. Less than a year after this (AT&SF portion of) line was taken up, the Powder River Coal Basin went into business, pumping coal trains toward Texas via the Joint Line. The traffic volume increase has been staggering over the years. Dumb. Super dumb, dumber than dumb. Pathetic.
My sentimental losses include Santa Fe and Northern Pacific, both through mergers, and both well run and respected. And though its demise made sense, I miss the Dent Line of the U.P. in Colorado; It was there that I was bitten by this crazy/wonderful railroad bug (it was 99.44% steam in the late 1940s).
Oh, and I miss company run passenger trains, thanks to government edicts about speed in the 1940s that killed OT operation and the spirit of the railroads. Definition of sick joke: Amtrak.
ardenastationmaster
Absolutely no doubt about it- Milwaukee Lines West. Sure, with roots in Montana there is some sentimentality. But it would be hard to dispute the conjecture that the line could have had all the traffic it wanted if it had survived another five years. With Tacoma as a burgeoning port, and a main line through the grain countries of Eastern Washington, Central and Eastern Montana, traffic could have been near capacity. Add to that the possibility of a southern extension into the Powder River Basin, the Milwaukee could have been a throbbing, vibrant railroad.
Alas... we are left with bike trails and what could have beens.
XLSpecial
This is a fascinating discussion--especially for someone from the Northeast like me where we saw a lot of track ripped up! In my mind, two of the biggest losses in the Northeast were:
1. The Poughkeepsie Bridge. Had that fire not given Penn Central an excuse to cease operations over the bridge, I have to believe the bridge would still be in use today. Freight traffic is growing in southern New England--particularly construction and demolition debris--and it takes a long detour up to the Albany NY area to cross the Hudson River; those bridges are more than 120 miles north of New York City. On the upside, this is keeping some colorful short lines busy, like Connecticut Southern, Providence & Worcester, Housatonic, and New England Central. Other southern New England freight traffic has to get trucked out of the region long distances to yards in Massachusetts or west of the Hudson River--if it goes by rail at all. Meanwhile, New York State has financed a number of studies trying to determine how it can get rail commuters west of the Hudson River into Grand Central Terminal in Manhattan, on the east side of the Hudson. One proposal I saw included putting a railroad track on a "new" Tappan Zee Bridge. But the costs would be enormous. I'll bet the state wishes the Poughkeepsie Bridge were still in service...
2. The loss of the Northeast Corridor as a through freight route. It's shocking that the biggest cities in the Northeast can't be served by a rail freight line that connects them all. Yes, CSX has managed to knit together a Washington-Batlimore-Philadelphia-North Jersey route from former B&O, Reading, CNJ, and Lehigh Valley componenents. And it's a busy line. But it has a lot of single track. NS, meanwhile, serves Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York from branches coming out of Harrisburg. Neither railroad has a direct route from New York City to Boston--and frankly, without a freight tunnel beneath the Hudson, I don't know how you could easily fashion such a route anyway. I found a TRAINS Magazine article by John Kneiling written in the 1970s warning of the dangers of shifting freight off the Northeast Corridor. Kneiling thought the Corridor would be ideal for intermodal trains in a region where highway congestion was bad--but that kind of service was just a drop in the bucket when Kneiling was writing.
Matt Van Hattem
Trains Magazine
Being an old South Sider from Chicago I would miss the Illinois Central. It was the train to my mother in laws home in Benton, Illinois.
We would ride from Homewood, Ill to DuQuoin, Ill. The city of New Orleans or Miami.
The cars weren't as spectacular as the ones I rode to Nebr on the Zephyers but I knew the stops and the scenery.
The sleeping kitten was my way to my Grandparents. Out of the loop in Chi-town around the lake to Fennville Mich. The C&O.
Last issue of Trains was enjoyable in reviewing all the routes of the states I had traveled. Yes Illinois is a true hub of rail commerce.
B rad Busse
Walkin' the Rails
From an economic standpoint? I'd have to agree that the destruction of Pacific Electric ranks right up there with the usual government dumb moves -- the result (perhaps one will recall) of the usual lies from a [General Motors] corporate attorney coupled to GM's notorious Fitzgerald bus conspiracy.
From a sentimental perspective? You'd be hard pressed to do better than bring back the Tintic mining district in Utah. Unless maybe we could resurrect the Rio Grande Southern.
gabe wrote: Which rail line do you think was the biggest mistake in abandoning? Please explain why.In answering this question, if you must give a sentimental answer rather than a business-related answer, please say so. For instance, I most miss the IC's Springfield - St. Louis line. I could make a half-hearted argument that the IC wishes it still had it, because now it does not have an efficient line between Chicago and St. Louis. But, in my heart, I know that my argument is crazy, because that area is saturated with railroads, and it probably helped rather than hurt railroading when this line was abandoned.I am told that the Rock's Memphis line is really missed, as it would be invaluable to a BNSF as an intermodal gateway.I look forward to hearing your answers.Gabe
Which rail line do you think was the biggest mistake in abandoning? Please explain why.
In answering this question, if you must give a sentimental answer rather than a business-related answer, please say so.
For instance, I most miss the IC's Springfield - St. Louis line. I could make a half-hearted argument that the IC wishes it still had it, because now it does not have an efficient line between Chicago and St. Louis. But, in my heart, I know that my argument is crazy, because that area is saturated with railroads, and it probably helped rather than hurt railroading when this line was abandoned.
I am told that the Rock's Memphis line is really missed, as it would be invaluable to a BNSF as an intermodal gateway.
I look forward to hearing your answers.
Gabe
The worst part about ICG's abandonment of their Springfield (actually Farmersville) - St. Louis line was that the Illinois Terminal offered to buy it. Had they gotten their wish, it probably wouldn't have been kept by Norfolk & Western, however.
DPJ
I miss the Rock Island & in the east the Penn Central. Out west it would be the D&RGW.
Steve
Hear hear. The narrow gauge circle of Colorado is of course my obvious choice. Having been over the entire route, I know that Colorado tourists could wake every morning to fantastic mountain views, overnight at some lodges and have a thoroughly enjoyable experience. That said, financially it would be a wreck with cost-saving measures taken along the lines of RGS's Galloping Geese. There would be little freight because, aside from uranium and other precious metals, there's little else that can't be hauled in/out by rubber tires.
My practical nomination would be, like someone else said, Tennessee Pass. If the UP were to lose the Moffat (which is sometimes bursting at the seams with traffic) to something serious, Onion Pacific yellow would turn into solid red. A second line through the Rockies would continue to serve the public interest.
Of course, I only know my own backyard.
Steve WaldenEditor, Colorado Railroads
daveklepper wrote:Isn't that possibly why the UP is in no hurry to sell Tennesee Pass?
True, but the line, at least to my inspection, is neither active nor maintained between the points of Minturn and Parkdale (roughly 130 miles). It's closed and rusted. Restoring it to service in an emergency would be difficult. Every rail, roadbed and signal would need inspection and in some cases replacement. Mountain winters are hard in Colorado and wood and other essential elements of a rail line weather quickly in the high altitude.
I don't know of a situation where a line in this condition was restored to service in time to avoid serious backlogs of freight. Additionally, NIMBY people have been moving to the communities surrounding the rail lines and will likely cause problems if the UP opens the line. UP faces a battle to use what it legally owns but practically abandons.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.