Disagreement is healthy, disrespect is not. In the 10+ years I've been a part
of this group and it's predecessor, I've been deeply impressed with Dave's and
John's clarity about the difference, and equally impressed with how seldom they
even have had to explain it or enforce it. This is an amazingly cordial,
respectful, and helpful group (an expression of Midwestern hospitality/granger
culture, sez I).
On the substance of what is being discussed: One of the things in which
Burlington men took pride is that the Q was the only major US railroad never to
go into bankruptcy/receivership. To the extent that is true, it must have been
due in part to good management, and also perhaps to their notorious "frugality"
(more granger culture). Perhaps the same management which enabled them to avoid
being sucked into the worst financial collapses of the late 19th century did so
in part by pinching pennies on maintenance and capital improvements, leaving
the line in the shape that provoked Hill's comments.
As for why the Q didn't get the Twin Cities mail contract, wouldn't the
Mississippi River route have been considered more circuitous, hence slower,
than the Milwaukee's line? Slower at least back when I'd imagine the contract
was first awarded (the advent of the diesel-powered Zephyrs - truly the bullet
trains of their era - obviously put the lie to that).
jonathan
--- In CBQ@yahoogroups.com, "cvlk" <cvlk@...> wrote:
>
> Gerald-
>
> This has been the start of a most interesting discussion and I would hate to
> see it cut off unless it becomes a fist fight.
>
> As much as I love the Q and cherish Overton's various works, I am not sure
> that the CB&Q, in the time period being discussed,
> was the progressive, well built, well managed machine that we normally think
> of.
>
> I am in the middle of enjoying Dave Leiter's "Wisconsin Central in Illinois"
> which is a fascinating glance into the 1880-1910 railroad scene in Chicago
> as well as being an important history of the WC / C&NP / SOO. Some figures
> presented in the book, not directly about the Q, seem to suggest that the
> MILW was a much stronger railroad than the CB&Q, at least as far as the Twin
> Cities traffic is concerned. As to the physical plant, I don't know that
> the argument can be made that the CB&Q was a top notch property then.... the
> grade from Congress Park to State Road (LaGrange Road) followed, if it can
> be believed, the same one that the West Towns labored up. I rode my bike up
> Burlington Avenue and the old West Towns ROW, and it was steep..... the
> ruling grade east of the Mississippi before the track was raised in 1895 (by
> commission order after a lawsuit) against the wishes of the CB&Q.
>
> I am not sure that Overton was entirely an unbiased historian....and it is
> interesting to ponder why the CB&Q, with its other achievements, was not
> able to get the mail contract between Chicago and the Twin Cities, and why
> the owners of the road, the NP and the GN, used other lines to bring their
> trains into Chicago for some time after the merger. Perhaps is was more
> than family jealousy!!!????
>
> Charlie Vlk
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
CBQ-digest@yahoogroups.com
CBQ-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
CBQ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|