>>1119543How many lies can you fit in one post?
>more expensive to maintain two fleets of locomotivesThey 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 trainsNot 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 speedNot 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system needed a rebuild; generation capacity was outdated and inefficient.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 The only thing that was outdated and inefficient was the track itself.
