MIL? RI Combined Track Quad Cities-KC

Discussion relating to The Chicago & North Western, the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific, the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad (Milwaukee Road), including mergers, acquisitions, and abandonments.

Moderator: Komachi

MIL? RI Combined Track Quad Cities-KC

Postby Engineer Spike » Thu Nov 15, 2012 10:44 pm

I have heard that the CP/IC&E line between the Quad Cities and Kansas City was combined with parts of the Rock Island. When was this done? I'm sure this was an economy move, since both roads were in poor financial shape.
"Welcome all ye who enter; the show that never ends. Tingfield Sperminal Railway." (Graffiti on the entry to Mohawk Yard Office)
Engineer Spike
 
Posts: 1645
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 3:24 pm

Re: MIL? RI Combined Track Quad Cities-KC

Postby CPF363 » Sun Nov 18, 2012 9:45 pm

The MILW began running trains over a portion of the Rock Island beginning in 1977. They returned to their own route for a period of time in the late '70s only to eventually work out an arrangement with RI to take over the eastern end of the Rock Island in the Muscatine, IA area. Today, it is Rock Island's line survives as far as Washington, IA, then shifts to the MILW to Polo, MO. MILW (CP) trains use Rock Island's Spline Line to reach Kansas City south of Polo.
CPF363
 
Posts: 629
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 9:00 pm

Re: MIL? RI Combined Track Quad Cities-KC

Postby JayBee » Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:26 am

CPF363 wrote:The MILW began running trains over a portion of the Rock Island beginning in 1977. They returned to their own route for a period of time in the late '70s only to eventually work out an arrangement with RI to take over the eastern end of the Rock Island in the Muscatine, IA area. Today, it is Rock Island's line survives as far as Washington, IA, then shifts to the MILW to Polo, MO. MILW (CP) trains use Rock Island's Spline Line to reach Kansas City south of Polo.


The segments of former RI were bought by the MILW from the RI Trustee as part of the bankruptcy liquidation of RI trackage. MILW bought a portion of RI Golden State Route from Culver Tower (Muscatine) to Ainsworth, IA. From Ainsworth, IA to Washington, IA they bought a RI branch to reach their own mainline, which they abandoned between Culver Tower and Washington, IA. There is one more segment of former MILW still used south of Polo, MO. Between Lawson, Jct and Moseby Jct. (near the towns of Lawson and Moseby, MO), a portion of the former MILW mainline is used to create a paired double track segment. Between these two points both railroads are on separate alignments, and mostly out of sight of each other.
JayBee
 
Posts: 353
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:28 pm

Re: MIL? RI Combined Track Quad Cities-KC

Postby Engineer Spike » Mon Nov 19, 2012 8:45 pm

I have wondered about this for a while, I used to work the Burlington across IA, and knew the RI line used to cross at Fairfield, while the MILW crossed at Ottumwa. A friend who worked for IMRL told me about the combining of the two lines.
"Welcome all ye who enter; the show that never ends. Tingfield Sperminal Railway." (Graffiti on the entry to Mohawk Yard Office)
Engineer Spike
 
Posts: 1645
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 3:24 pm

Re: MIL? RI Combined Track Quad Cities-KC

Postby CPF363 » Wed Nov 21, 2012 7:23 pm

JayBee wrote:The segments of former RI were bought by the MILW from the RI Trustee as part of the bankruptcy liquidation of RI trackage. MILW bought a portion of RI Golden State Route from Culver Tower (Muscatine) to Ainsworth, IA. From Ainsworth, IA to Washington, IA they bought a RI branch to reach their own mainline, which they abandoned between Culver Tower and Washington, IA. There is one more segment of former MILW still used south of Polo, MO. Between Lawson, Jct and Moseby Jct. (near the towns of Lawson and Moseby, MO), a portion of the former MILW mainline is used to create a paired double track segment. Between these two points both railroads are on separate alignments, and mostly out of sight of each other.


What does the line have for signals now? Is there any CTC or ABS on the route? Are the signals legacy MILW on the old MILW portion and and RI signals on the RI portion?
CPF363
 
Posts: 629
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 9:00 pm

Re: MIL? RI Combined Track Quad Cities-KC

Postby JayBee » Fri Nov 23, 2012 1:18 pm

Here is a link to an ETT for the Kansas City Subdivision.

http://www.illinirail.com/icerail/timet ... ty_sub.htm
JayBee
 
Posts: 353
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:28 pm

Re: MIL? RI Combined Track Quad Cities-KC

Postby CPF363 » Tue Sep 01, 2015 5:25 pm

What was the reasoning as to why the entire Rock Island was not retained between Ainsworth, IA and Seymour, IA? I've seen references online to the fact that the old MILW line through Ottumwa has grades on it and that it is not really conclusive for high speed running due to many curves on the line. How did the rest of the Rock Island's Golden State route between Ainsworth and Seymour compare with the parallel MILW with respect to curves and grades? If the Rock Island was straighter and without grades, did the MILW ever to consider fixing up all of the Rock Island from Muscatine to Seymour and abandoning the entirety of their own line? Was the MILW's decision to create a new line made up of portions of both the Rock Island and the MILW driven by online business on the new combined main line as it stands today?
CPF363
 
Posts: 629
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 9:00 pm

Re: MIL? RI Combined Track Quad Cities-KC

Postby JayBee » Wed Sep 16, 2015 7:52 pm

CPF363 wrote:What was the reasoning as to why the entire Rock Island was not retained between Ainsworth, IA and Seymour, IA? I've seen references online to the fact that the old MILW line through Ottumwa has grades on it and that it is not really conclusive for high speed running due to many curves on the line. How did the rest of the Rock Island's Golden State route between Ainsworth and Seymour compare with the parallel MILW with respect to curves and grades? If the Rock Island was straighter and without grades, did the MILW ever to consider fixing up all of the Rock Island from Muscatine to Seymour and abandoning the entirety of their own line? Was the MILW's decision to create a new line made up of portions of both the Rock Island and the MILW driven by online business on the new combined main line as it stands today?


I think the choice of which Rock Island trackage to buy, and which piece of the Milwaukee to retain and use came down to three factors;
1) Cost and condition of the piece of the RI versus that of the MILW.
2) C&NW control of the Spine (by using the MILW from Washington to Polo the MILW avoided the need to negotiate Trackage Rights over the Spine from Seymour to Polo)
3) Where the Customers were located.
JayBee
 
Posts: 353
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:28 pm

Re: MIL? RI Combined Track Quad Cities-KC

Postby mtuandrew » Sat Sep 19, 2015 12:43 pm

JayBee wrote:
CPF363 wrote:What was the reasoning as to why the entire Rock Island was not retained between Ainsworth, IA and Seymour, IA? I've seen references online to the fact that the old MILW line through Ottumwa has grades on it and that it is not really conclusive for high speed running due to many curves on the line. How did the rest of the Rock Island's Golden State route between Ainsworth and Seymour compare with the parallel MILW with respect to curves and grades? If the Rock Island was straighter and without grades, did the MILW ever to consider fixing up all of the Rock Island from Muscatine to Seymour and abandoning the entirety of their own line? Was the MILW's decision to create a new line made up of portions of both the Rock Island and the MILW driven by online business on the new combined main line as it stands today?


I think the choice of which Rock Island trackage to buy, and which piece of the Milwaukee to retain and use came down to three factors;
1) Cost and condition of the piece of the RI versus that of the MILW.
2) C&NW control of the Spine (by using the MILW from Washington to Polo the MILW avoided the need to negotiate Trackage Rights over the Spine from Seymour to Polo)
3) Where the Customers were located.

If the C&NW had gotten the MILW back in 1985 (or the Soo had gotten the Spine), things might have been different.
User avatar
mtuandrew
 
Posts: 4014
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:59 am
Location: the Manassas Gap Independent Line

Re: MIL? RI Combined Track Quad Cities-KC

Postby CPF363 » Mon Sep 21, 2015 6:45 pm

mtuandrew wrote:If the C&NW had gotten the MILW back in 1985 (or the Soo had gotten the Spine), things might have been different.

Be interesting to hear your views are regarding this line if the above scenario were true. Would the line be closed or downgraded or busier that it is today? If it were possibly of no interest to C&NW or the SOO, would Southern Pacific considered purchasing this route in addition to the rest of the Golden State Route for their own direct line into Chicago? Also, was the Rock Island more direct and overall a better line than the parallel MILW route used today by the CP?
CPF363
 
Posts: 629
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 9:00 pm

Re: MIL? RI Combined Track Quad Cities-KC

Postby mtuandrew » Tue Sep 22, 2015 5:53 pm

CPF363 wrote:
mtuandrew wrote:If the C&NW had gotten the MILW back in 1985 (or the Soo had gotten the Spine), things might have been different.

Be interesting to hear your views are regarding this line if the above scenario were true. Would the line be closed or downgraded or busier that it is today? If it were possibly of no interest to C&NW or the SOO, would Southern Pacific considered purchasing this route in addition to the rest of the Golden State Route for their own direct line into Chicago? Also, was the Rock Island more direct and overall a better line than the parallel MILW route used today by the CP?

Can't say for certain whether the MILW or the Rock route was more direct Quad Cities - Allerton. Either way, using the Rock Seymour - Allerton and abandoning the MILW south of there would have saved a lot of maintenance cost (and eliminated a potential competitor) had either the Soo or the North Western gotten both Spine and MILW.

It's doubtful at best that the SP would have been able to purchase either the Rock or the MILW KC-Chicago route. The only way I can see it having happened is if the Soo Line had purchased both the Rock Spine and the entire Milwaukee (post-PCE abandonment), had decided to focus its system on Minneapolis, and had spun off the entire MILW line from Kansas City to Bensenville Yard to raise cash. That fits with the Soo's later spinoffs of what became the Wisconsin Central and I&M Rail Link. I can't see the C&NW having spun off a competing line wholesale, let alone to a competitor, unless it was forced by regulators to do so. Besides, the North Western already filled a role of bridging the gap from Omaha, Minneapolis and St. Louis to Chicago, so it'd make sense for it to keep a Clinton - Seymour cutoff and go for the Kansas City market in a big way.
User avatar
mtuandrew
 
Posts: 4014
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:59 am
Location: the Manassas Gap Independent Line

Re: MIL? RI Combined Track Quad Cities-KC

Postby 57A26 » Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:06 pm

mtuandrew wrote:
JayBee wrote:
CPF363 wrote:What was the reasoning as to why the entire Rock Island was not retained between Ainsworth, IA and Seymour, IA? I've seen references online to the fact that the old MILW line through Ottumwa has grades on it and that it is not really conclusive for high speed running due to many curves on the line. How did the rest of the Rock Island's Golden State route between Ainsworth and Seymour compare with the parallel MILW with respect to curves and grades? If the Rock Island was straighter and without grades, did the MILW ever to consider fixing up all of the Rock Island from Muscatine to Seymour and abandoning the entirety of their own line? Was the MILW's decision to create a new line made up of portions of both the Rock Island and the MILW driven by online business on the new combined main line as it stands today?


I think the choice of which Rock Island trackage to buy, and which piece of the Milwaukee to retain and use came down to three factors;
1) Cost and condition of the piece of the RI versus that of the MILW.
2) C&NW control of the Spine (by using the MILW from Washington to Polo the MILW avoided the need to negotiate Trackage Rights over the Spine from Seymour to Polo)
3) Where the Customers were located.

If the C&NW had gotten the MILW back in 1985 (or the Soo had gotten the Spine), things might have been different.


I think he meant using the exRI to Seymour and then regaining MILW trackage to Polo and beyond. The RI line had seen many line changes to reduce curvature and grades in the 1940s, but needed a lot of work by the end in 1980. I've been told that there was little on-line business remaining on the Ainsworth to Allerton segment. It's why that part wasn't operated under directed service.

The MILW also had to purchase West Davenport to Muscatine (Culver) from the RI. The MILW obtained trackage rights over the RI in the early 1900s when they built the cut-off from Muscatine to Rutledge (north of Ottumwa) where it joined the original KC main from Marion and Cedar Rapids, IA.

The CNW was so sure they were going to get the MILW that they purchased some of the right of way between Seymour and Allerton. Had they acquired the MILW they would've put that back in and abandoned between there and Polo. I'm told the UP may still own some of that land.
JLH
57A26
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:37 am
Location: The Hawkeye State

Re: MIL? RI Combined Track Quad Cities-KC

Postby CPF363 » Tue Oct 27, 2015 8:45 pm

57A26 wrote:I think he meant using the exRI to Seymour and then regaining MILW trackage to Polo and beyond. The RI line had seen many line changes to reduce curvature and grades in the 1940s, but needed a lot of work by the end in 1980. I've been told that there was little on-line business remaining on the Ainsworth to Allerton segment. It's why that part wasn't operated under directed service.

The MILW also had to purchase West Davenport to Muscatine (Culver) from the RI. The MILW obtained trackage rights over the RI in the early 1900s when they built the cut-off from Muscatine to Rutledge (north of Ottumwa) where it joined the original KC main from Marion and Cedar Rapids, IA.

The CNW was so sure they were going to get the MILW that they purchased some of the right of way between Seymour and Allerton. Had they acquired the MILW they would've put that back in and abandoned between there and Polo. I'm told the UP may still own some of that land.
JLH


I was wondering why the MILW did not just use their own line from from West Davenport to Culver, then tie on to the RI to from Culver to Seymour and return back to their own route at Seymour to Polo and Kansas City. Based on looking at Internet maps, it looks like the most significant curves are south and west of Ottumwa on the MILW and not so much to the north and east towards Washington, does that hold true for the hills also? Would make sense regarding what was done by the MILW management if the Rock Island south and was of Culver was in need of a huge investment to make it use able.

It is a wonder why the Rock Island did not construct a more direct line between Chicago and Kansas City parallel to the Santa Fe possibly leaving the Chicago-Omaha line around LaSalle and joining the Spine Line at Polo verses going through Davenport more to the west and somewhat out of the way. If this line were ever built, it would have made the eastern end of the Golden State Route much more valuable to the SP than using the Davenport to Allerton line.
CPF363
 
Posts: 629
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 9:00 pm

Re: MIL? RI Combined Track Quad Cities-KC

Postby JayBee » Tue Oct 27, 2015 10:54 pm

CPF363 wrote:
57A26 wrote:I think he meant using the exRI to Seymour and then regaining MILW trackage to Polo and beyond. The RI line had seen many line changes to reduce curvature and grades in the 1940s, but needed a lot of work by the end in 1980. I've been told that there was little on-line business remaining on the Ainsworth to Allerton segment. It's why that part wasn't operated under directed service.

The MILW also had to purchase West Davenport to Muscatine (Culver) from the RI. The MILW obtained trackage rights over the RI in the early 1900s when they built the cut-off from Muscatine to Rutledge (north of Ottumwa) where it joined the original KC main from Marion and Cedar Rapids, IA.

The CNW was so sure they were going to get the MILW that they purchased some of the right of way between Seymour and Allerton. Had they acquired the MILW they would've put that back in and abandoned between there and Polo. I'm told the UP may still own some of that land.
JLH


I was wondering why the MILW did not just use their own line from from West Davenport to Culver, then tie on to the RI to from Culver to Seymour and return back to their own route at Seymour to Polo and Kansas City. Based on looking at Internet maps, it looks like the most significant curves are south and west of Ottumwa on the MILW and not so much to the north and east towards Washington, does that hold true for the hills also? Would make sense regarding what was done by the MILW management if the Rock Island south and was of Culver was in need of a huge investment to make it use able.

It is a wonder why the Rock Island did not construct a more direct line between Chicago and Kansas City parallel to the Santa Fe possibly leaving the Chicago-Omaha line around LaSalle and joining the Spine Line at Polo verses going through Davenport more to the west and somewhat out of the way. If this line were ever built, it would have made the eastern end of the Golden State Route much more valuable to the SP than using the Davenport to Allerton line.


Depending on the era, it might be because of the humpyard at Silvis, IL. That was where RI reclassified cars from the west for delivery to the other railroads at Chicago.
JayBee
 
Posts: 353
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:28 pm


Return to Granger Railroads - C&NW, Rock Island, and MILW

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests