MR vs NP

Trains Magazine General Discussion
1

Since the Milwaukee Road thread came up again recently, it jiggled a (one of many, actually) loose part of my brain that has wondered…how did the Milwaukee compare to the Northern Pacific as far as profile, route & traffic? I’m not that familiar with the Pacific Northwest rail scene but my impression was that the GN was the major company, followed by the NP and, finally, MR. The big difference was that the NP, being part of the “Hill Lines” had more financial backing (and cooperation from the GN) than it could have commanded on it’s own. In short, it might have been the GN’s little brother but was still part of the same family, so it could always count on some cut of the traffic pie.

So, assuming that the C&NW and the CRI&P would have been sufficient east from St. Paul connections, would the NP have been a solid enough property to outlast the Milwaukee anyway or would it have been more likely to have become the PNW’s fallen flag?

2

By the 1960s, NP carried the most carloadings, it was managing to increase carloadings through its count point at Paradise during the 1960s. GN began a decline in carloadings through Whitefish beginning in 1958 and continuing through the BN merger. MILW was generally increasing its car counts, and these spiked considerably up after the BN merger, but, prior to that time, were about half the GN car count.

Statistically, GN’s Operating Ratio began a steady deterioration in 1950, which lasted through the BN merger, NP’s Operating Ratio dropped below both the GN and MILW in 1957 and never recovered, even while its carloadings increased after that point.

NP made much less money, no doubt due to an expensive operating structure. In 1967, it only made $9 million in operating income, MILW and GN both earned in excess of $50 million that year. Ironically, system-wide, GN earned most of its profit back east, Milwaukee made most of its net profit out West. GN had the shortest line hauls by far of the three (380, something like that), NP about in the middle (450 or so), MILW (PCE) about twice the NP average haul.

NP tried to run a big trucking subsidiary, NP Transport. BN shut it down right away.

GN and MILW ran pretty lean operations out West, NP had employees all over the place, wth some slight exageration probably more in Missoula alone than GN and MILW combined in the whole state of Montana.

From a carloading standpoint, NP was the biggest of the three carriers, but it also lost the long haul to the CBQ at Billings and then again at Minnesota Terminals.

NP and GN fought for traffic, there was no “friendly” cooperation. Ralph Budd was always initiating projects to “block” any suspected NP expansion plan – one project, the Montana Eastern, was partially completed in cooperation with the MILW.

Neither MILW nor GN had Government Land Grants to fall back on. NP could run a money losing railroad and never go bankrupt, although it

3

Sometime since 2001 TRAINS had an article with altitude profiles of the trainscontinental lines. Can’t remember even which year it was, but I think it was 2003 or 2004. Don’t remember how Milwaukee compared to NP, but both had a lot of altitude changes.

4

NP had the worst profile of the bunch, and carried the most traffic. Never met a shipper that cared about profiles.

Best regards, Michael Sol

5

A bit off topic, but the same situation existed with the SP as it did with the NP. When the ATSF walked away with SP’s non-railroad assets after the failed merger, it was all over for the SP.[#offtopic]

6

Michael -------- where was (did) the Montana Eastern supposed to go?

7

Eric. I have to grab some maps on that in storage; I hope to get to them by the weekend. Best regards, Michael Sol

8

Just spent the last week at one of the dams along the Clark Fork and MRL. Man, that is one sweet line.

The funny thing is, traffic along Montana 200 is incredibly sparse, even by Idaho standards, because this region is so out of the way of the main east-west traffic corridors. NP really chose the long way around, but they got a water level grade out of it at least.

9

Michael, you posted this on the GN thread last fall. I added links to the locations.

[quote]
QUOTE: In Central Montana, GN and MILW had agreed to operate a joint line from Grass Range east. The GN organized a subsidiary, the Montana Eastern Railway. On December 1, 1917, the Milwaukee and the “Eastern” agreed that GN would construct east from Lewistown and Milwaukee north from Grass Range to an intersection. From that point the companies would operate a joint line east to the confluence of the Musselshell River and Flatwillow Creek. The Milwaukee’s line through Teigen to Winnett is the same grade, but the joint line would have continued on another 30 miles or so.

Milwaukee was to drop south to [url="h

10

Dave — The Yellowstone Valley and Clark Fork Valley and the Bitterroot Valley were already rather well settled by the time the railroad came. It went via the Yellowstone because there were people there. “Nobody” lived up along the Missouri where the GN ended up building. Even fewer people lived along the “Jawbone” of the MILW. In fact, the GN’s original construction turned SW at Havre and built directly to Butte via Great FAlls and Helena, entering Butte along what is now the I-15 corridor over Elk Park Pass. Only after this line was completed did the GN complete the Hi-Line to the West. The GN beat the NP to Butte and the MILW was the last.

(Now, watch the actual date historians come out of the woodwork!!)

11

It was Brockway, Brockton is on the mainline of the GN about 15 miles west of Culbertson MT.
Randy

12

Not what I was pointing out. The NP along the Clark Fork between St. Regis and Sandpoint is through some not only sparse territory, but Highway 200 along that route is also not on any major or mid-major transportation corridor. Compare that to GN which parallels U.S. Highway 2 most of the way, Milwaukee which parallels U.S. Highway 12 most of the way to Missoula (except for the Butte diversion via old US Highway 10), and the NP which for the most part paralleled old US Highway 10. Those places where Milwaukee went “into the woods” so to speak aka Haugen to Avery to St. Maries to Othello were for the most part areas by which they could reduce route mileage, aka Milwaukee between Haugen and Ellensburg is (I believe) about the same distancewise as the old US 10 route between those two points. Whereas the NP between St. Regis and Spokane is a lot longer than the US 10 route.

NP was built to access then known areas, that I agree. But the line along the Clark Fork up and around Lake Pend’Oreille is really taking the long way around through an area that never was a population center then or now. Milwaukee gained alot on NP when they cut across the Bitterroots rather than avoiding them.

13

There was another reason for Milwaukee’s route choice. Millions of acres of the largest stands of White Pine in the world. Although the 1910 fire reduced most of it to ash (including unique Redwood refugium), the Milwaukee still maintained two of its largest tree farms west of Avery right up until circa 1982.

After acquisition of the WI&M, Milwaukee was generating a couple of million dollars a year in net profit from that line with very little effort, plus the long haul Bennett Lumber traffic, Potlatch, and wheat. Milwaukee’s route choice, ostensibly through the back country, produced far more revenue than NP’s run from Missoula to Spokane. Plus, after that water grade freight line cutoff was completed, St. Regis to Paradise, to avoid the 2.2% grade at Evaro, NP got a far better grade, Missoula to Sandpoint, but almost constant curvature, Missoula – St. Regis. Originally surveyed as a long branch line to Coeur d’Alene, it was 25 mph max speeds all the way, compared to Milwaukee’s 50-60 mph speeds in the same river valley, Missoula - St. Regis.

14

Which begs a question that I never have seen adequately answered. Why, when the MILW had abandoned the PCE and the BN had the option (and in some places, did) to purchase that ROW, did the BN not take advantage of the better alignment? I can see (and have seen!!) pure vengfull jelousey (spelling) in action as part of the answer, but that does not seem to come anywhere close to a complete answer.

I can remember riding the NP’s NorthCoast Limited through there and having a MILW freight simply blow the doors off our train as it passed us.

15

[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

Michael, you posted this on the GN thread last fall. I added links to the locations.

[quote]
QUOTE: In Central Montana, GN and MILW had agreed to operate a joint line from Grass Range east. The GN organized a subsidiary, the Montana Eastern Railway. On December 1, 1917, the Milwaukee and the “Eastern” agreed that GN would construct east from Lewistown and Milwaukee north from Grass Range to an intersection. From that point the companies would operate a joint line east to the confluence of the Musselshell River and Flatwillow Creek. The Milwaukee’s line through Teigen to Winnett is the same grade, but the joint line would have continued on another 30 m

16

Is that still true today? Or has MRL upgraded enough to increase the speed between Missoula and St. Regis?

17

“Far more revenue.” Do you have a detailed study behind that claim?

The NP is 50 mph over most of that stretch, with maybe one or two brief 25 mph stretches. It’s not that bad a route. I don’t think you have proof the line was surveyed for 25 mph; that’s just an inference you’re making based on the false notion you have that the entire route now is 25 mph.

18

cornmaze - use your head. How many industries were there for NP to serve between Missoula and Spokane? (PS - Frenchtown counts as part of the greater Missoula area.) Any NP logging trains up that way? Seems most of the mills between Sandpoint and Spokane were served by GN or SI, not NP.

Milwaukee basically had a monopoly on the upper North Central Idaho logging industry.

19

For reference, you can compare NP’s Missoula to Spokane routing with CP’s original Golden to Revelstoke routing in British Columbia via the “big bend” of the Columbia River. Took CP a hundred or so miles out of the way, albeit with a water level grade, unitl they build the Rogers Pass line.

NP could have taken the same course and headed straight over Lookout and Fourth of July passes and saved a hundred or so miles as well. I think at one time NP considered this when they were buiding the Coeur d’Alene branch via the Clark Fork/St. Regis rivers over Lookout to Wallace ID. Lookout Pass itself was supposed to be a temporary line until they could build a new tunnel under the pass, and they did survey a route over Fourth of July as part of the narrow gauge line through the Silver Valley.

But again, once NP became a “Hill” line, all new reroute ideas were abandoned. Only the GN was the recipient of such realignments from then on.

20

FutureMod, I think I am using my head. M Sol told us earlier in this post that things are not always as they appear; that statistics tell us a different story than what appearances tell us. Well, what do the actual statistics tell us?