John:
In my opinion, and I would hope that of others, this is simply not true. Although there was a fair amount of traffic between Lincoln and Alliance, the portion of the Q beyond Alliance on both the Sheridan and Casper lines was basically a branchline railroad in terms of traffic. It was maintained in very good condition for the amount of traffic it handled. True, it was all bolted rail on partially fractured rock ballast, with virtually no rail above 112 lb., with some 90 lb. rail on the Sheridan line and a lot of 90 lb. on the Casper line. This does not mean that the physical plant and level of maintenance was not consistent with 100 ton cars. Until the very late 60's, the percentage of 100 ton car traffic was not high enough to justify the additional expense of heavier, welded rail and fully crushed ballast. And the Q kept the speed low on the 90 lb. rail, particularly with 2nd generation 6 axle power. It was the coal trains that began to tear the railroad up, and this happened virtually overnight on the 90 lb sidings, not necessarily because of rail weight, but inadequate anchorage.
Railroads in the 1960's were not generating enough revenue to make expenditures in anticipation of future traffic. I think GN/NP executives knew exactly what they were doing, and I would be surprised if they would have agreed to premature large expenditures to handle future heavier loads, particularly in lieu of dividends. And I bet the Q executives were smart enough not to ask for money that they knew could not be justified.
Glen Haug
To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
From: whstlpnk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2012 02:03:22 -0800
Subject: [CBQ] Re: BN GP 20s
Mr Barber,
...........
In a note more related to the Q, I've heard repeatedly from an NP civil engineer that the BN spent far more than they anticipated on the former Q physical plant in the PRB, but system-wide, as the Q's management had never really upgraded the plant for the coming of the 100-ton car back in the early 1960s. (I imagine the flood of PRB coal trains only exacerbated this problem.) The engineer's point of view was that the Q's masters wouldn't spring for the work, preferring higher dividends. As the Q was beholden to St Paul, I kicked this around with a GN/BN exec, another civil engineer who was clear that the Q management never brought it up. I get the feeling his point of view was that no reasonable request would have been refused, and upgrading rail to handle heavier loads was certainly reasonable. Anyone know for sure?
Thanks again!
John Phillips
Seattle
__._,_.___
![]()
__,_._,___