I found the June TRAINS Map of the Month (“Crossing the Cascades”) fascinating and raising (for me) questions:
From the maps and grade profiles, the Milwaukee Road’s Snoqualmie Pass crossing (even the original “High Line” prior to completion of the tunnel) appears greatly superior to its rival NP and GN crossings, even though it was the last route built.
What were the factors and considerations that led NP (which earlier chose virtually the same route west of Ellensburg) to shortcut through a higher and more difficult Stampede Pass enroute to Puget Sound? The NP’s ultimate arrival at Puget Sound between Seattle and Tacoma does not differ much from the Milwaukee’s similar arrival and the map information certainly doesn’t explain why the NP concluded the Stampede Pass route as advantageous.
More inexplicable (to me) is the GN’s decision to cross the Cascades at Stevens Pass which with the original switchbacks at an elevation not indicated on the map but well above that of the first Cascade tunnel completed 7 years later and itself 800 feet higher than Snoqualmie. The ultimate Stevens Pass route after completion of the second, 7.8 mile-long Cascade Tunnel is still 330 feet higher than the Snoqualmie route with significantly worse grades (2.34% westbound compared to 0.70% max for the Milwaukee route; 2.51% max eastbound vs. 1.74%). And the GN’s route from Spokane to Seattle was 20 miles longer longer. The GN had the advantage of building 16 years prior to the Milwaukee so the Snowqualmie grade was available.
Hill’s civil engineers were considered brilliant in locating the low-grade, low-elevation crossing of the Rockies at Marias Pass, but considering the construction, maintenance, and operating costs of Stevens Pass (including the additional costs for the tunnel-specific electrification), the route appears to have been a colossal mistake. Selecting Snoqualmie might well have
I found the June TRAINS Map of the Month (“Crossing the Cascades”) fascinating and raising (for me) questions:
From the maps and grade profiles, the Milwaukee Road’s Snoqualmie Pass crossing (even the original “High Line” prior to completion of the tunnel) appears greatly superior to its rival NP and GN crossings, even though it was the last route built.
I grew up in Wenatchee, worked for the GN there as a clerk, and made several trips with my Uncle over Stampede and have studied history of NP and GN in some detail so feel. qualified to comment.
First, the profile Trains published is seriously misleading since its east end is about Ellensburg. The relevant east end point for all three lines is the Columbia River, that is Wenatchee GN, Beverly MILW, and Pasco NP. From Ellensburg eastward the MILW had a 6-7 mile climb at 1.6% to a tunnel. IIRC the station name was Boyleston. They key point is that this summit was very near the same elevation as everone’s Cascade summits. This was followed by a 23 mile +/- descent to Beverly, all on 2.2% grade.That is why the MILW electrification extended from Seattle and Tacoma to Othello.
Also look at the total rise and fall. Westbound the MILW had to drop a few hundred feet down to Ellensburg and then climb it back at the Cascades. This us called redundent grade and is very undesirable in terms of fuel consumption.
Now think of helper grades in steam days. Both GN and NP had their helper grades adjacent to each other. MILW had two widely separated helper grades, each requireing support facilities. The MILW line was seriously inferior in terms of grades and the power required to surmount them. The electrification proves that. The MILW was the worst of the lot in terms of profile.
What were the factors and considerations that led NP (which earlier chose virtually the same route west of Ellensburg) to shortcut through a higher and more difficult Stampede P
The method I usually use for cut-ins is to quote what I want in the usual manner, then highlight and copy the “quote” tag from the top of the quote, then paste it wherever a new quote of the original post will begin. Follow that with a copy and past of the “/quote” tag at the end of each quoted segment, then put your comments in between the two tags.
If you’re posting from a phone, that might not be too easy, though. I rarely post from my phone, and if I do, I keep it simple.
You probably know this, but you can highlight just a part of a post, click on “Quote” and that’s all that will move. The neat part about that is that you can do it repeatedly - just make sure your cursor in the reply box is where you want the next quote to land. Highlight the next quote, and click on “Quote.” Voila!
The end effect would be the same as what I just described.
IIRC GN had the lowest crossing, as they followed rivers through the mountains…which is why during spring snow melt / run-off times they had to detour over the higher but drier NP.
BNSF Northwest Division TT#3 dated April 26, 2006 has much condensed track profiles. Scenic Subdivision (GN) summit is over 2800’, say 2840’. Stampede summit (NP) is just over 2800’, say 2810’. Not enough to get excited about either way.
Both routes generally follow the rivers, but the GN does get its feet wet between Snohomish and Lowell and I can remember one year the GN got hit hard between Cashmere and Peshastin, including a thru truss bridge knocked off one pier. The NP Palmer cutoff is high and dry, but it is only about 20 miles long. I suspect the comment about water damage may be correct, but would like to see 100 years worth of records before drawing any firm conclusions.
The NP had nothing comparable to the GN’s slide problems along the sound between Ballard and Everett Jct.