[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/n/ - Transportation


Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 35 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


Janitor applications are now closed. Thank you to everyone who applied!



File: MILW_E72_E34A_s.jpg (272 KB, 1000x653)
272 KB
272 KB JPG
These threads have had some success in the past, so I'm starting another. Post pics and information on electric freight trains ITT.

Pic related, electric locomotives on the greatest electrified freight (and passenger) route ever built in North America, the Milwaukee Road's Pacific Extension. Over 50 years of continuous successful operation, only a massive corporate conspiracy could take it down.
>>
File: MILW_E73_Joe_boxcabs_s2.jpg (357 KB, 1000x657)
357 KB
357 KB JPG
>>1114078
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
File: MILW_E21_s2.jpg (246 KB, 900x588)
246 KB
246 KB JPG
>>
>>
>>
File: MILW_E20_E72_10_5_72_s2.jpg (288 KB, 1000x679)
288 KB
288 KB JPG
>>
>>
>>
File: MILW_E70_E21_9_29_70_s.jpg (275 KB, 999x663)
275 KB
275 KB JPG
>>
>>
File: MILW_E45B_D_10_71_s.jpg (457 KB, 1000x675)
457 KB
457 KB JPG
>>
>>
>>
>>
For some context, here's a map of the electrified lines. There were two sections of the mainline electrified, between Harlowton, MT and Avery, ID and between Othello and Tacoma in Washington. By 1974 both sections were forcefully de-electrified before their time by a conspiracy by corrupt top management to undermine the competitive ability of their own railroad. In 1980, after raping the Milwaukee Road's electrified operations, they abandoned the Pacific Extension entirely from Montana west.
>>
>>
File: milw1.png (281 KB, 1551x1453)
281 KB
281 KB PNG
Some more context for the rape of the Milwaukee Road's electrified lines by corporate conspirators.

http://www.northeast.railfan.net/classic/MILWdata5.html
>>
That's all for now, hope you've enjoyed so far.
>>
>>1114109
I never tire looking at the MILW electrics. I can only imagine the long-term cost savings in fuel if they were still in use today.

Thanks for the post.
>>
Thank you based MILW autists. I have downloaded all images to my train wallpaper folder.
>>
File: MILW_E78_3_s.jpg (323 KB, 1000x669)
323 KB
323 KB JPG
>>1114238
>>1114364
Glad you are enjoying the posts, we are extremely lucky that many talented photographers preserved the Milwaukee Road's electric operations for posterity. I wish that I could have seen it in person like they were able to.
>>
How many electric locomotives can use the catenary at once? What would happen if too many used it?
>>
>>1114661
>How many electric locomotives can use the catenary at once?

I believe the maximum simultaneous load was two Little Joes and a 3-unit boxcab set, or two 4-unit boxcab sets on the Coast division.

>What would happen if too many used it?

I assume that the line would be overloaded. I don't think they ever had an issue with that happening, though.

Pic related.
>>
File: img652.jpg (387 KB, 1000x664)
387 KB
387 KB JPG
Also, the operator in the lead Little Joe could control trailing diesel locomotives via MU cables (there were two control stands in the cab, one for the electrics and one for the diesels).

The typical consist for trains on the electrified Mountain division was as follows (not mine):

During 1972:

261C: Joe plus diesels
263C: Locotrol diesels
265TC: Double Joe, assisted by box motor helper as required over the Bitterroots and Rockies

262S: Joe plus diesels
264S: Locotrol diesels
266S: Double Joe, assisted by box motor helper as required over the Bitterroots and Rockies

During 1973 before Sept.:

261C: Diesels
261TC: Joe plus diesels
263C: Locotrol diesels
Dead Freight West: Double Joe, assisted by box motor helper as required over the Bitterroots and Rockies

Adv 262S: Joe plus diesels
2nd 262S: Diesels
264S: Locotrol diesels
Dead Freight East: Double Joe, assisted by box motor helper as required over the Bitterroots and Rockies

>Twelve Joes was sufficient to run three Joes in each direction Harlowton - Avery per day. Four each way was not sustainable.
>>
>>1114096
Is that some sort of inspection car over in the siding there? 'Cause it looks a lot like a South Shore Line interurban to me.
>>
>>1115484
Probably a work train sleeper maybe for catenary maintence crews? I can see it's blue flagged.
>>
>>1116528
Makes sense. Just seems a bit odd to me to have a passenger car with forward-facing windows and what appears to be a pilot (or is it a mini flatcar to go with a speeder?) on a car that wouldn't be used in multiple unit service. Maybe it's normal and I don't know about it.
>>
>>1116528
>>1116572
Looks like some kind of MOW car. It's probably a work train. Pretty typical to convert old Pullman passenger cars to MOW service.
>>
>>
>>1114103
>Pacific to the Great Lakes
That is an astoundingly sexy map
>>
>>1114103
reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

wtf why were they de-electrified????
>>
>>1114109
thanks so much. absolutely beautiful rolling stock. such a tragedy that electrified lines are nonexistent out west now.
>>
File: MLWLITLJOESSIXMONTEXIT.jpg (937 KB, 1573x1012)
937 KB
937 KB JPG
>>
File: DawsonMTMILW.jpg (480 KB, 1526x964)
480 KB
480 KB JPG
>>
>you will never cross the western united states in the railroads twilight years

WHY EVEN FUCKING LIVE
>>
>>1119391
how can cagerism and (((amtrak))) even fucking compete?
>>
>>1114105
makes me so mad reading this, and i'm not even American
>>
File: milw152.jpg (62 KB, 700x473)
62 KB
62 KB JPG
>>1119392
They can't.
>>
>>1119381
more expensive to maintain two fleets of locomotives

service gap in idaho/washington meant a separate grouping of diesels had to be kept in the area to transfer trains

coupling/decoupling locomotives costs time on the schedule; the route competed with UP and GN on speed

no one else was electrified. GN had long since taken out their electrified track in washington.

system needed a rebuild; generation capacity was outdated and inefficient.

fuel was dirt cheap at the time

expensive to have multiple shops with specialties on either electric or diesel. makes staffing and training costs higher

the route didn't make much money, so any savings were a big deal.
>>
File: MILW_E70_1_s.jpg (208 KB, 900x611)
208 KB
208 KB JPG
>>1119543
How many lies can you fit in one post?

>more expensive to maintain two fleets of locomotives

They had to maintain two fleets of locomotives anyway, it's not exactly hard to transfer diesels across the Milwaukee's system, especially considering most diesels on the Pacific extension were MU'd directly with the electrics and traveled the entire distance from Tacoma to the Midwest anyway.

>service gap in idaho/washington meant a separate grouping of diesels had to be kept in the area to transfer trains

Not really. You're also forgetting that electrification was used to replace steam locomotives in the areas it was used, which meant a massive savings in labor and maintenance costs. That didn't change when the Milwaukee dieselized.

>coupling/decoupling locomotives costs time on the schedule; the route competed with UP and GN on speed

Not an argument, Milwaukee, as a result of its electrification, had the fastest time freights between the PNW and Midwest from 1970 through 1973, kicking BN's ass in the terms of lucrative contracts with East Asian shippers. MILW's route for awhile at least was the most profitable route through the PNW, especially in the early years of Burlington Northern.

>no one else was electrified. GN had long since taken out their electrified track in washington.

Okay? Not an argument, it's not like its difficult to transfer freight between competing lines depending on whether your competitor is electrified or not. This was never an issue with Milwaukee's electrified operations. Do you think diesels can't operate if there's electric catenary overhead?

>system needed a rebuild; generation capacity was outdated and inefficient.

Generation capacity was fine and could have easily expanded if Milwaukee Road executives actually gave a fuck about the survival of the railroad as a whole and took GE up on its offers for electrification expansion in the late 60s. The only thing that was outdated and inefficient was the track itself.
>>
File: MILW_E21_3_s.jpg (326 KB, 1000x650)
326 KB
326 KB JPG
>>1119543
>>1119643

>fuel was dirt cheap at the time

Electric power was still cheaper, overall. In fact, overall fuel/power costs on the Pacific extension increased after de-electrification since MILW had very favorable long-term contracts for electric power that had been signed in the 1910s and weren't expiring anytime soon.
>Increases in diesel fuel costs over the next few years because of the oil embargo of March 1973 wiped out any gain, and more, because of the "need" to shut down that "worn out" electrification, and the "need" to apply those scrap dollars to perceived company problems. If the electrics had continued to run, the savings, at 1972 operating levels, in fuel costs between 1974 and 1980 would have been $64 million dollars.
>expensive to have multiple shops with specialties on either electric or diesel. makes staffing and training costs higher

It really wasn't, and the MILW's electric locomotive fleet was the cheapest to maintain on the system. When the railroad de-electrified in 1974 there were electric box-cabs still in mainline revenue service from the start of electric operations nearly 60 years prior. An unheard of service life for a diesel locomotive.

>the route didn't make much money, so any savings were a big deal.

False. The electrified Pacific extension was the most profitable line on the entire system.

In short, you're full of shit. Educate yourself.
>>1114105
>>
More useful information here about the profitability of the MILW's pacific extension and the corporate conspiracy to shut it down is here, especially in rob_l's posts (a Berkeley professor).

https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?11,2096851,2096980
>>
>>1119648
Thanks
>>
>>1119646
>>1119648
based MILWbro
post more pics pls
>>
>>1119646
based af response
>>
I wonder of three things.

1. How much of ex-MILW ROW is still in actual railroad use?
2. If I had infinite money, how much dollars would revival of MILW cost? Not necessarily by name, but by mere freight-under-wire principle over the same terrain. I gather most of the earthworks remains in place, so it should be a matter of land cost and track laying.
3. In the seventies double stacking containers was not an issue. Now it seems that freight is 40% coal unit trains, 40% stacks unit trains and general freight as the rest. Would MILW electrification allow for double stacking?
>>
>>1119990
almost none of the pce is still in use. most of it isn't even track any more. you would need to purchase large parts of the property from the states, as many of them have converted ex-milw row to rail-trails. so that's already a large amount of dollars. however, since you'll have to put up brand new catenaries, double-stacked containers won't be an issue
>>
>>1119658
>>1119676
>>1119985
Also, forgot to mention the key factor of regenerative braking on the electric locomotives and how cost efficient that was. Essentially, all electric locomotives generated power back into the system when braking downhill. You can't do that with a diesel.

This discussion also paints a clearer picture of how much more efficient electrified operations were compared with diesel and pretty much demolishes any attempt by shills to claim that MILW's electric operations were inefficient, costly, or outdated.
https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?11,1597231,1599332

>>1119990
>1. How much of ex-MILW ROW is still in actual railroad use?

Very little, the entire Pacific extension was taken out of service by design in order to eliminate competition for BN in the PNW. Ironically, that extra capacity is sorely needed nowadays, as seen by the days long delays on the Empire Builder passenger trains and big issues with reliable freight service during the annual grain harvest rush in the region. The increased amount of oil trains certainly isn't helping, either.

>2. If I had infinite money, how much dollars would revival of MILW cost? Not necessarily by name, but by mere freight-under-wire principle over the same terrain. I gather most of the earthworks remains in place, so it should be a matter of land cost and track laying.

The most logical thing to do nowadays would be to electrify BNSF's line through that territory. If using a combination of hydroelectric power and coal-powered steam plants as the electrical supply, long term it would probably pay off, but it would cost tens of billions of dollars up-front, I would imagine. Certainly doable, in any case.
>>
File: MILW_E79_3_s.jpg (240 KB, 900x555)
240 KB
240 KB JPG
>>1119990
>3. In the seventies double stacking containers was not an issue. Now it seems that freight is 40% coal unit trains, 40% stacks unit trains and general freight as the rest. Would MILW electrification allow for double stacking?

Considering that the standard clearance height of the MILW's catenary was 24 feet 2 inches, the railroad's electrified system could already handle double stack service in open terrain 50 years ago (pic related, tri-level auto racks). The main problem would be clearance within tunnels, but it would be possible to notch the tunnels and lower the floor level inside them without much difficulty.
>>
Will they ise battery electric train on deelectricified lines?
>>
>>1120247
no.

when lff's become more scarce it's likely that electrification will make a comeback in the us because we'll always have coal
>>
File: 9232017145818.jpg (107 KB, 380x640)
107 KB
107 KB JPG
Too bad Elon Musk doesn't have a softspot for trains.

>capcha :o
>>
>>1119646
>>1119643

jesus fuck you really are an autist. stephen molenaux 'not an argument' memes + getting tilted over an internet post about trains.
>>
>>1119990
>3. In the seventies double stacking containers was not an issue. Now it seems that freight is 40% coal unit trains, 40% stacks unit trains and general freight as the rest. Would MILW electrification allow for double stacking?
You don't know shit about railroading, son.
>>
>>1120444
>gets BTFO
>cries "autism"

K
>>
File: bs_MILW_5013_s.jpg (305 KB, 1000x685)
305 KB
305 KB JPG
GN electrics (ignore the filename)
>>
>>1120416
Why would he? He has his hyperloop thing, which is holding back a lot of high speed rail projects while planners wait for him to get it going, meanwhile he just so happens to have a car company
>>
>>1119643
>>1119646
>>1121110

>is autistic and up on stefan molyneux's dick

you don't know shit about logistics operations so ofc. you're just parroting milw talking points.

1-having to maintain diesel and electric locomotives at multiple points on a remote system costs more money than maintaining one system alone. having to train two groups of mechanics on two entirely different systems + sourcing parts for locomotives that exist nowhere else in the world likewise costs additional money. and the entire industry, post-steam, was moving towards standardization where mechanics could draw from massive parts bins supported by huge corporations (EMD/GE diesels). contrast that with the milw western division, where one shop could rebuild a bipolar loco and have it work, but another shop would fuck up the job. meanwhile your competitors are buying one traction system, with one shared parts bin and one pool of mechanics

2- the route was shorter but had steeper grades, with very few sidings and an ancient signalling system, whereas BN was constantly adding new equipment, shortening the route, reducing grades, and upgrading signalling. By the mid 60's route times were within a few hours, which is why having to switch traction three times fucks you if literally your only competitive advantage on long haul freight is time.

3- absolutely an argument. you need mechanics and parts; the ability to poach the former from competing roads plus having a pool of parts due to large demand across multiple corporations is a competitive advantage. being the outlier costs money.

4- no, the system used 1920's era ac to dc generators (literally an AC motor driving a DC generator) and transformers that had to be housed indoors. The line, the signalling, and the electrical equipment were all incredibly outdated.
>>
>>1121735

5-there were box cabs in service because they didn't buy enough locomotives in the 50's, and the route crossed 4 passes (crazy mountains, pipestone, st. ellis, snoqualme pass) and because there were three separate places in montana where assist locomotives were needed to negotiate the 2-3% grades.

in contrast BN crossed over the same distance but only two passes, and had grades under 1.5% from marias pass in montana to stevens pass in washington. one traction set could do the entire route from chicago to seattle.

by the late 60's and early 70's, the competition could move more freight faster and for less money. just look at the consists from the era--no milw train goes over 3000 with BN consists regularly going north of 4500. or look at the countless milw magazines that have been scanned. they are usually losing money or (just slightly) in the black.

the western line was a late, bad bet made by some businessmen in the early 21st century. it just took 60 decades to die. it sucks and i'd certainly like to have an electrified transcon mainline through montana but it wasn't viable.

get over it.
>>
why hasn't the US rail networks been fully electrified?

you wouldn't even need to replace engines. Just refit them with pantographs. so they can run on diesel on sections that haven't been electrified yet.
>>
Redpill me on New York Central electric operations
>>
>>1121741
There's no real reason to. Fuel costs are passed directly to the customer, so the only advantage there is increased competitiveness, but rail freight hasn't tried to be aggressively competitive with subsidized trucking in a long time. Either you care about speed and you send it by truck, or you don't and you send it by rail. Even cheaper prices for rail wouldn't change much. They'd also have to maintain thousands of miles of catenary. even from an environmental standpoint, it's a hard sell. Freight trains aren't really much of an issue; there'd be better places to spend green bucks. US rail companies barely maintain their rail. It took regulatory action to force them into upgrading their signalling systems because they just don't give a shit.
>>
>>1121763
hang fiber on the catenary poles. sell access to internet service providers. get broadband to the rural areas.
>>
>>1121223
Well i'll be a sonuva... I didn't know GN had these. What was GN's reason for dropping electrics? Image/corporate identity? Age? Different direction taken by Management?
>>
>>1121801
I recall, they were used on the Cascade Tunnel route because steam engines were not useful in there and were dropped the moment diesels came about.
>>
>>1121763
You are saying this as if there were no benefits to electrification, while this is not the case. Depending on a route and loads carried, railroads are either limited by hp/ton or tractive effort. Diesels with more than ~4500hp/6 axles have proven to be unreliable so far. On the other hand getting an electric loco with three times that power rating is not much of an issue at this point.

High power at lower fuel cost ( if that happens, obviously ) means than you can run trains faster, which means you can push more trains through a certain line at the same cost per ton.

That in turn means that you can forget expensive infrastructural projects such as double tracking. See how much BNSF spent to double track some part of the Tehachapi route.

Think of it this way - MILW lingered, in spite of its torturous route, because it enjoyed lower operating costs that electrics brought, and died because it dropped them.
>>
>>1121886
>>1121763
they'll be quieter than diesels.

energy price stability.

as long as you're putting in catenary. you can do needed modernization to signals, switching, and tracking.
>>
>>1121886
There obviously are benefits. I wish they would electrify, because it'd help out Amtrak. What I meant with my post is there's just no motivation in the current rail climate, in the US. And what I meant by my post was that, even though electrification means higher speeds and lower fuel costs, neither of those things really matter, at least to a degree to motivate the capital expenditure to electrify, to the rail industry. Fuel costs are passed to the customer, and railroads in the US aren't maintained well enough to utilize the speed improvements.

It's like the pot smoker living in his parents basement through his 20s. Obviously there'd be benefits for him to get educated, gainfully employed, and move out, but for him it's just meh. The best chance at electrification in the current climate would be passing legislation to force it, but no one's going to lobby for it because the rail industry doesn't give a fuck, the oil industry obviously wouldn't want it, and there's more pressing battles for environmentalists.
>>
File: 654 on Plumas.jpg (240 KB, 994x670)
240 KB
240 KB JPG
WILW wasn't the only western electric railroad with an orange paint scheme!
>>1121801
If you REALLY wanna shock look at some of the "rebuilt" electrics GN scrambled together. Yikes.
>>
File: S2-289A.jpg (248 KB, 1280x866)
248 KB
248 KB JPG
>>1122654
Actually GN had quite a bit of an electrical fleet, because as
>>1121881
said they were pretty much required to use the 8 mile long tunnel on the mainline. In 1956 diesels and ventilation shafts arrived (only one year after my pic btw), so the electric portion west of Skykomish was pretty obsolete.

On a side note: even today with how modern the cascade tunnel is, they still place a limit on how many trains can go through in a single day. So without the ventilation system, you probably would have some serious health problems even in a diesel engine.
>>
File: $_57 (12).jpg (390 KB, 1114x1600)
390 KB
390 KB JPG
>>1121735
>>1121739
If management wanted the railroad to survive and remain electrified, it would have. Simple as that. They could have found a way to keep the line intact, instead they did everything in their power to destroy it. To ignore the conspiracy against the Milwaukee Road at the top and claim its failure as inevitable is disingenuous at best.

If you are the poster I think you are, neither of us is going to change the other's mind about this, so let's just post trains.
>>
File: sn652.jpg (1.29 MB, 2592x1944)
1.29 MB
1.29 MB JPG
>>1122659
Nice pic, appropriate for Halloween. You can still see SN 654's relative 652 at the Western Railway Museum at Rio Vista Junction. Pic related.
>>
File: GN_5018_2_s_.jpg (237 KB, 900x541)
237 KB
237 KB JPG
>>1122714
Meant for >>1122654

>>1122659
GN's electric fleet is pretty awesome. I have a .webm of that locomotive class somewhere.
>>
File: GN_5019_1copy.jpg (319 KB, 600x408)
319 KB
319 KB JPG
>>
File: GN_5013copy.jpg (259 KB, 600x398)
259 KB
259 KB JPG
>>
>>1121801
>>
I wonder how much of the MILW right-of-way could be refurbished for use in energy storage, like those Ares Power gravel/concrete block trains? Heavily inclined sections preferred...
>>
File: ARES.jpg (95 KB, 1359x767)
95 KB
95 KB JPG
>>1126148
Just learned about ARES from your post. I think they need to be near a solar array or wind farm. They also need a cleared graded space much wider than the Milwaukee Road. Much of it goes through national forests, and multiple sections have been converted to nice rail trails.
>>
File: MILWMap.jpg (984 KB, 3000x1688)
984 KB
984 KB JPG
One more map.
>>
>>1126640

Needs end yards for the blocks sure, and preferably a double track mainline so returning electric locos can bypass the loaded trains. But if you have the transmission infrastructure in place (which the MILW had) the power supply can be remote or bought at grid prices.

There was noises that JR East's renewable energy subsidiary was considering doing something similar at the Usui pass, which formerly had sprocket rail traction a long time ago due to steepness. Not too far from Kanto/Tokyo, had electric infrastructure, and would be an excuse to keep the pass in working condition.
>>
File: imgj723KK.jpg (431 KB, 889x900)
431 KB
431 KB JPG
>>
nice thread i like the Milwaukee trains.
>>
File: 9609.1160013600.jpg (306 KB, 1024x713)
306 KB
306 KB JPG
and another to keep it active.
>>
File: L1160_Newport(S).jpg (83 KB, 800x466)
83 KB
83 KB JPG
From 1953-54 until the early 1990s, the Victorian Railways ran 25 English Electric locomotives, each with 1650 kW of power and a maximum speed of 120 km/h. They were used on the Traralgon line, which was at that time completely electrified.

The L class ran freight from branch lines to Morwell and Yallourn. These places produced 'briquettes', compressed coal pieces, for power generation elsewhere, mostly the plant at Newport. They also ran some passenger services along the line.

The wires to Traralgon are now long gone. Now they end at Pakenham, a major terminus for Melbourne's suburban network. The downfall of the line may have been caused by the use of natural gas from Bass Strait to power the plant at Newport, and I speculate also advances in long distance power transmission allowing more power to be generated in the La Trobe valley itself where the coal was sourced.

Pic related is L1150 hauling briquettes near newport.
>>
>>1114103
>>1119391
>>1126644
Why was the line between othello and avery non-electrified?
It surely would've saved changing locomotives?
>>
>>1121227
>which is holding back a lot of high speed rail projects while planners wait for him to get it going
No it isn't. Only idiots and losers are sitting around waiting for it to happen when there hasn't even been a full tech demo yet, let alone an actual commercial demonstrator.
>>
>tfw my opa used to work for them

He was an electrical engineer and helped maintain the system. Feel bad everything he and thousands and thousands of others worked for amounted to nothing. It was a great system. I still have some model trains from him in my room at my parents house.
>>
>>1119389
Eagle's Nest?
>>
>>1120206
A lot of the ROW is still in use in the midwest, m8.
>>
>>1131283
Cool, never heard of that one before.
>>
This one too.
>>
>>1131285

avery--->othello was relatively flat and didn't need to be electrified, initially.

plans were made to close the gap but it never happened.
>>
>>1131335
>opa

What ethnic term is this?
>>
>>1139912
It's dutch for grandpa
>>
File: milwaukeeroad1920_1.jpg (1.74 MB, 2040x2888)
1.74 MB
1.74 MB JPG
Came across this old article on the opening and operation of the electrified Coast Division in 1920.
>>
File: milwaukeeroad1920_2.jpg (1.42 MB, 2040x2888)
1.42 MB
1.42 MB JPG
>>1140000
>>
File: milwaukeeroad1916_1.jpg (1.61 MB, 2040x2808)
1.61 MB
1.61 MB JPG
And another from 1916 when the Mountain Division opened.
>>
File: milwaukeeroad1916_2.jpg (1.51 MB, 2040x2789)
1.51 MB
1.51 MB JPG
>>1140003
>>
File: milwaukeeroad1916_3.png (920 KB, 2040x2795)
920 KB
920 KB PNG
>>1140004
>>
File: milw-E34Ajpb[1].jpg (106 KB, 1067x329)
106 KB
106 KB JPG
>>1140004
Fun fact, the units from the class of boxcab pictured in the article lasted to the end of electrification. Almost 60 years of continuous service.
>>
File: milw-E36AggC[1].jpg (108 KB, 1000x670)
108 KB
108 KB JPG
>>1140017
some units from this class*
>>
>>
>>
>>1141756
Not bad.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.