There is an excellent photo on page 92-93 of a CRI&P train leaving northbound from Manly, Iowa. My Dad was a CRI&P telegraph op there in the '20s. 3 railroads crossed there and they would handle over a hundred trains per day on multiple tracks. Mom recalled there were many days when he would return from work with his lunchbox unopened due to no time to eat. Manly, Iowa is much quieter now.
Just 5 miles up the track north of where this photo was taken is the town of Kensett, Iowa. In 1934 he was station agent there and that’s where I was born. [:)]
Regarding the issue of past vs present, can it not be said that the old adage might hold true here, e.g. learn from the past to apply actions for the future? On that point, I will agree the 70’s issue isn’t all it could have been, in that it didn’t really connect the actions of 1970’s railroading with today’s rail issues. Only the article on SP can be said to make such connections between then and now, although there were a few historical errors, nothing major.
For example, I would have liked for Greg McDonnell’s short piece on the Milwaukee Road to have mentioned how the Milwaukee retrenchment left the Northern Tier States under virtual monopolistic control of BN/BNSF. He also could have better explored some of the holes in the arguments that allowed for the PCE retrenchment, given that the subject was dissected into explicit and suprising revelations on this very forum. Certainly the way the Milwaukee was withdrawn from the PNW has left a lot of unanswered questions.
The article on the formation of Amtrak certainly has relevence for the current hot issues regarding Amtrak today.
I also wi***he Penn Central blurb would have been a little more indepth.
The “That 70’s Look” logo is kitsch, but so are pro-Amtrak articles, so its par the fhe course.
Are we really sure that the 70’s issue is the brainstorm of the new editor? An issue is a long time in the making; I am pretty sure that the staff has several issues in various stages while planning waaaay ahead. Mark Hemphill would be one who could say what the time span is between the initial plan date and the delivery date to the hobby dealer or your mail box.
Art
Maybe its because Im new to this whole hobby an all, but I thought the 70s issue was great. Not everyone was alive during the 70s such as myself so it was a great learning tool. Have subscribed to Trains for a year now, going on to my 2nd and never thought once that it wasent worth the money. When the day comes that I become as smart as you all about railroading, maybe I’ll take what I read differently and complain and nit pick more often, but Im not like that so I doubt that will ever happens. Lets hope not.[:)]
I received the new issue this past weekend and I found it to be quite interesting since it goes back to my college days and the years immediately afterward. The article about Erie Lackawanna was interesting because it showed how its final collapse was a long time coming.
I may not be completely interested in every article in every issue of TRAINS when I first get it out of the mailbox but they’re all worth reading and within a few days I have read and re-read the issue from cover to cover and find myself to be satisfied and eagerly awaiting next month’s issue.
To futuremodal: Your plea for subsidized grain rates out of Montana and your rant against BNSF’s so-called monopoly is starting to wear thin, especially when you place it in every thread imaginable. There may be many unanswered questions about MILW’s retrenchment and since the clock can’t be reversed, they will probably stay that way. The statute of limitations has long since expired if any criminal matters are involved.
C’mon, CSSHE, don’t be so blatantly disingenuous regarding what I say. No one said anything about subsidizing grain rates out of Montana, rather we lament the fact that there is no real rail competition out of Montana since the retrenchment of Milwaukee. If what you are inferring is that the wish for the feds to mitigate the situation and provide the groundwork for a second Class I across the Norther Tier would somehow be a subsidy, you are wrong. Mitigation is not subsidy, and there is no statute of limitations on righting a wrong.
Unless you think that any government action that benefits one party to the detriment of another is a subsidy. If that’s the case, then it can also be argued that the decision by the feds to allow the Milwaukee to pull up its tracks west of Miles City is a direct subsidy to BN/BNSF, since it allowed BN to basically double its grain moving charges, all other things being equal. No one at this time is saying that anything criminal occurred, rather misplaced regulatory action was taken that resulted in extreme hardship for these folks over the last two decades.
You can call it a rant or whatever term you need to help you alleviate your collective guilt over the situation, but the fact remains that the rates BNSF charges out of Montana are double what they should be given a truly competitive market. Logic dictates grain moving rates should be in the $20/mt range, not the $40/mt range. It doesn’t take a rocket economist to know that this practi
Let the shippers ship by truck, or air, or UPS or first class mail or let’em build their own RR! The shippers have access to the same capital markets the RRs do. There is nothing stopping them from building out to whereever they want to go.
Or, according to your logic, if the farmers can’t make any money in their current situation, they should move and/or find another line of work. Nobody is holding them hostage.
It’s bad enough BNSF has to compete against subsidized truckers. You want BNSF to subsidize famers? Subsidization of farmers is the government’s job!
Rocket Economist? Come on Future - give it a rest. The Milwaukee Road is gone. It ain’t comming back. You don’t make arguements, you make unsupported/unsubstantiated claims. The same ones over and over and over.
C’mon, CSSHE, don’t be so blatantly disingenuous regarding what I say. No one said anything about subsidizing grain rates out of Montana, rather we lament the fact that there is no real rail competition out of Montana since the retrenchment of Milwaukee. If what you are inferring is that the wish for the feds to mitigate the situation and provide the groundwork for a second Class I across the Norther Tier would somehow be a subsidy, you are wrong. Mitigation is not subsidy, and there is no statute of limitations on righting a wrong.
Unless you think that any government action that benefits one party to the detriment of another is a subsidy. If that’s the case, then it can also be argued that the decision by the feds to allow the Milwaukee to pull up its tracks west of Miles City is a direct subsidy to BN/BNSF, since it allowed BN to basically double its grain moving charges, all other things being equal. No one at this time is saying that anything criminal occurred, rather misplaced regulatory action was taken that resulted in extreme hardship for these folks over the last two decades.
You can call it a rant or whatever term you need to help you alleviate your collective guilt over the situation, but the fact remains that the rates BNSF charges out of Montana are double what they should be given a truly competitive market. Logic dictates grain moving rates should be in the $20/mt range, not the $40/mt r
I think this–healthy–debate kind of makes a good point initially discussed by LC.
I don’t have the current issue of Trains yet; so, I don’t know how the issue tied the changes of the 70s to the affect on today’s railroading. Accordingly, I cannot and would not disagree with LC’s conclusions.
However, my first training is as an historian, and I think history is so much more than a hobby. It tells us why the laws we have today are what they are, it tells us why foreign policy of today is what it is, and it tells us why railroads are what they are, etc.
I am really looking forward to “that 70s issue” in the hope that the issue will be rife with examples of how railroading that happened largely before I was born affects railroading today, and would like to see more historical analysis.
I agree with LC’s conclusion of the “fluff;” but hey, you got to sell magazines. Sadly, some people like fluff. I am willing to sift through fluff to get to substance if that means that Trains can sell more magazines and have more money to bring me a better product.
I don’t disagree with the gravamen of LC’s position, but GO HISTORY!
I grew up in the 70’s when there used be tons of railroads railfan. I remember as a kid seeing the Frisco, Milwaukee Road, Rock Island and the Katy. Now, there only four major railroads not counting all of the regional and shortlines. I can’t wait to get my copy!!
C’mon, CSSHE, don’t be so blatantly disingenuous regarding what I say. No one said anything about subsidizing grain rates out of Montana, rather we lament the fact that there is no real rail competition out of Montana since the retrenchment of Milwaukee. If what you are inferring is that the wish for the feds to mitigate the situation and provide the groundwork for a second Class I across the Norther Tier would somehow be a subsidy, you are wrong. Mitigation is not subsidy, and there is no statute of limitations on righting a wrong.
Unless you think that any government action that benefits one party to the detriment of another is a subsidy. If that’s the case, then it can also be argued that the decision by the feds to allow the Milwaukee to pull up its tracks west of Miles City is a direct subsidy to BN/BNSF, since it allowed BN to basically double its grain moving charges, all other things being equal. No one at this time is saying that anything criminal occurred, rather misplaced regulatory action was taken that resulted in extreme hardship for these folks over the last two decades.
You can call it a rant or whatever term you need to help you alleviate your collective guilt over the situation, but the fact remains that the rates BNSF charges out of Montana are double what they should be given a truly competitive market. Logic dictates
First of all, returning rail competition to the Northern Tier doesn’t require any government money, just government action. The point is, it took a government action to eliminate rail competition up this way, and it will take government action to ameliorate the situation. If the BNSF apologists insist on calling any such amelioration a subsidy, then why not take that logic to the next level and call the government mandated retrenchment of Milwaukee a subsidy for BN?
Of course, the bigger question is why so many railfans are opposed to inducing rail-based competition? Do you insist that the only way railroads can lower their operating ratio’s and endear themselves to Wall Street is by empowering railroads with monopolistic pricing power?
What is extremely amusing is LC’s insistence that any action that results in de facto competition for BNSF is taking of private property. A whole lot of farmers in Montana have had their property taken from them due to BNSF’s monopolistic pricing practices at the blessing of the regulators. I guess it only counts as private property if it has “Property of BNSF” signs on it.
Either you liked the issue or you didn’t. That’s all that’s necessary. The editor surelyreads this stuff or gets wind of it some how. Enough negative and things change, positive get the style perpetuated. Put Limitedclear down as “didn’t like the issue” anything else is just plain thinking tooooo much.