Something that I have always found interesting, and I don't recall ever reading the reason why. This not only pertains the Milwaukee Road but others railroads as well. (KCS by my home for example) Why did the Milwaukee Road, on some trestles and bridges, use a ballasted deck (tray) and on others simply laid ties and rail directly on the deck? Anyone (Ken?) know why they would do both? It doesn't seem like the size/length of the bridge made a difference because I've seen both methods used on all types. Its just a thing that's makes me go "mmmmm" Thank you in advance.
I can only guess why some would chose to do so, while others would not. It might have something to do with track speeds, curvatures (which the MILW had on many bridges), wear and tear by keeping vibrations minimized, or? Or some combination of reasons. I am sure that back then, it was not for tonnage purposes. Cars were much smaller and they could not have foreseen evolution as we can look back to see it now. It might have had something to do with investment ($$$) which after getting their Transcontinental up and running with temporary timber trestles, MILW stepped ahead and immediately began converting (it was pre-planned for some, while others were built as steel to begin with) to with steel and concrete which was state of the art for it's day- Also even including such things as the quality of signalling equipment. Whereas in 1909, others nearby were behind the curve on some of this infrastructure and still making upgrades decades later. This was one reason it cost MILW so much to build west. Good question. I'm not sure there is a definitive historical record, in any company file, which might explain it well enough to eliminate all doubts or skepticisms.
A late response to this question but, for what it's worth, the interpretive signs that are now along the rail trail explain that the steel bridges where primarily put in place due to fire danger, and a major forest fire did hit St Paul Pass at least once in the early years. The initial cost of building the ballasted deck spans may have been higher but, like many other things the Milwaukee tried to do, it required less ongoing maintenance and inspection, and the bridges could be watched by regular track section gangs instead of specialized B&B gangs. Also, as stated, the ballasted deck design reduced stresses caused from vibration and extended the life of the trestles. My question is, though, is there anywhere where a listing of all the major bridges has been published? I thought I saw a book on it once, but I'm not sure.
I have been up and down the line that runs from Green Bay, WI up to Ontonagon, MI. For the most part, the bridges are all wooden trestles and are used to cross small creeks, rivers and swampy areas. They are solid, but nothing extraordinary, and do not differ much in construction from similar bridges on the old Soo Line and CN&W lines in the area. Timber was and is readily available in the UP, so there are plenty of mills that can supply finished wood for far less cost than importing steel or concrete, as neither material is readily available in the area. Cut stone is more prevalent for use in building than concrete in the western UP (Upper Peninsula). The rail line itself shows very robust construction all through the UP-good ballast, excellent ROW alignment and heavy rail. I would speculate that the Milwaukee used the most economical material available in the area, with an eye to the long term structural stability for the mainline. The repeated use of standardized depots and buildings along the line, and the fact that many still stand in good condition, shows the Milwaukee would spend the money on infrastructure if they thought the situation warranted it. Keep in mind, in this area, snow accumulation is borderline obscene some winters, and from the mid 1800’s through the 1960’s, rail was the only means of long distance travel from October through May. Even ships stop moving during these months. That the Copper Country Limited operated until the end of Milwaukee passenger service says something. On a side note, there are a bevy of old lumber branch lines in the area, but finding remnants of their existence is far more difficult than the old MILW mainline. So, they spent money and time on the mainline, but branches were laid in sand/rocks that compromise the soil base in timbering areas. I have never come across a listing of Milwaukee Bridges. Model Railroader had a two part series on bridge basics, engineering terms and methods of construction a few years back. I think the only way to come across this information is to actually access the Milwaukee archives and see if there are engineering drawings of the line you are interested in. I saw a book years back that listed the complete ROW page by pages, showing track layot, and then had a 3 view drawing of each bridge used on the line. Can't remeber what RR it was. Mark
Steel bridges were built right at the start on the Columbia, Idaho, Missoula, etc Divisions. From the beginning this line was built to then state-of-the-art standards. But on the Coast Division, those such as across Snoqualmie Pass were wooden for the first couple of years. Not changed out due to any fire concerns. They were wood simply to expedite completion of the Extension. Those were contracted out to a local lumber company which would later become part of the Weyerhaeuser operations. That company was logging right in that area and if I recall correctly, some of the MILW r-o-w in there was acquired from that lumbering operation. But getting back to the concrete ballasted decks, I am hoping one of these days to talk with a former career MILW B&B man who lives in my vicinity. He will likely have a definite answer. But as I opined earlier I'd bet it had something to do with dampening vibrations and perhaps even track speeds.
I seem to remember, also, a book somewhere that listed all the major bridges on the Milwaukee Road. I don't know if it was diagrams, or just a list. I have no idea what book it was, or when. I wouldn't mind getting a copy of the book on the construction of the Pacific extension, though. It is always still infuriating to think that all that extraordinary engineering ultimately went to waste.
Nothing is coming into mid at present. All I can think of are profiles (condensed, full) and bridge & piling books. The latter most were lost to land fills. If you think of that resource, please post? The book by Stan Johnson? Although it might only serve to further infuriate, it is a must have! What a story. I found it one of those which once started, is very hard to put down. There needs to be a much harsher word than waste, in order to describe the stupidity and lies which ended that enterprise. What is even worse, is how much of the public still keeps swallowing the deceit. It all just proves, yet again, that repetition of falsehoods often enough creates truth.
Historical Revisionism. Rewriting the history books, such as the Holocaust never happened, and the MILW failed due to heavy grades, Lines West losses, etc. Garbage.
