I never saw such a letter either, but I believe I can somewhat answer the
questions as to the grades that Hill may have been talking about.
Certainly he would have included the H&StJ main across northern Missouri,
particularly the western half. This line was a roller-coaster, traversing over
one hill after another with ruling grades that had to approach 1%. This line
had to be challenge for train crews in later days when freight trains were
longer and faster. Granted, it was built in the late 1850's, but it was never
improved much west of Brookfield. I believe I read somewhere that CB&Q was
improving the eastern portion of this line when Hill was inspecting the
railroad, and he made the comment that they were spending money in the wrong
place. I think I would have agreed with such a statement, and maybe this is
what upset him. But remember this was a fairly light mainline, and was still
capable of handling freight trains at 50 mph with very few curve restrictions.
I wouldn't have spent much money on it.
The mainline across Iowa was also hilly, no question, particularly west of
Ottumwa. However, this line was mostly double track by the time Hill invested
in the Q, and a lot of the original main was relocated with the double-tracking
if the grade was inadequate. Although there were a number of hills, the ruling
grade both directions was 0.66% compensated. Improving this line much more
that they did would have been a waste of money in my opinion.
There were several lines in Illinois that had less than ideal grades. Oregon
to Savanna is another roller-coaster, but are the grades undesirable? Probably
not, as this is a high-speed line, and the Q had another route through Denrock
and Mendota to by-pass it if they really needed to, grade-wise.
And there were the lines both north and south of Beardstown (the original main
from Frederick to Vermont via Browning, Arenzville Hill, and Concord to West
Alton. Now these were secondary mains, but Hill may have been concerned about
some of them because they were on the coal route to the southern Illinois mines.
Of the lines I mentioned, all are gone (the H&StJ west of Laclede, I think)
except the Savanna main and the line through Arenzville. The Savanna main has
had a number of line changes in the 40's west of Oregon.
Were the grades on these lines any worse than the GN? Certainly not in the
mountains. GN's grade was 2.2% both directions across the Cascades, 1.8% EB
and 1.2% WB across the Rockies, and GN made numerous line changes in the 50's
(and even the 60's) to get them the way are today. In fact the profile of
these Q lines were not much worse than some of the GN mainline in the prairies
(Havre to Shelby is an example).
Glen Haug
To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
From: sjl_prodigynet@yahoo.com
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:53:09 +0000
Subject: [CBQ] Grade Improvements on the Q( was Re: Milw Board of Directors)
Mr. Sol wrote
>...Hill's letter after his inspection of the Burlington, however, describes
> a furious Hill, finding a Burlington "with worse grades on the prairies
> than the GN has in the mountains..."
Boy I would love to read that letter.
The question that has now piqued my curiosity is which grades were these and
when and how were they improved. Anyone know the answers to this question?
Again, I want to thank the moderator for leaving this thread open. I am finding
it fascinating.
sjl
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/210850553/direct/01/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
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/
|