Not entirely - but it was by 1976. Had steps been taken to allow railroads to operate in a relatively free market place prior to the 1950's (when rail income descended below the level necessary to generate adequate renewal capital), the industry as a whole would likely evolved to roughly the point it is today. By the early seventies, twenty-plus years of capital starvation had produced an infrastructure deficit so great that I don't think any private enterprise could have overcome it without federal help - let alone the railroads under then-current labor ICC constraints in general, and in the rail business conditions in the Northeast in particular. PC was not operating in the same conditions as, say, Southern or BN.
Conrail was necessary - first as a quick-strike means to rationalize a plant that hadn't shrunk to meet business conditions and to trim the associated employment numbers, then as evidence that even the right-size plant in good working condition would not be able to survive under regulation based on a turn-of-the century business model.
CatFoodFlambethen as evidence that even the right-size plant in good working condition would not be able to survive under regulation based on a turn-of-the century business model.
Was Federal regulation of railroads from 1906 to the Staggers act based on any business model at all?
You appear to have made a duplicate thread.....
You may want to redirect yourselves to: http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/213512.aspx?sort=ASC&pi332=8
Murphy Siding Being an avid reader of history, I can appreciate different views of the writers, when writing about the same events. What I do have difficulty with, is writers that try to explain something in the past, using present day perspectives.
Being an avid reader of history, I can appreciate different views of the writers, when writing about the same events. What I do have difficulty with, is writers that try to explain something in the past, using present day perspectives.
And one thing I could likewise do without, is when people try to apply their mid-20th century sensitivities to modern day issues.
Convicted One Murphy Siding Being an avid reader of history, I can appreciate different views of the writers, when writing about the same events. What I do have difficulty with, is writers that try to explain something in the past, using present day perspectives. And one thing I could likewise do without, is when people try to apply their mid-20th century sensitivities to modern day issues.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
well, it's fueled by a "good ol boy" mentality. People naturally being resistant to change, some just fight harder than others trying to prove their way of thinking has not become outmoded.
schlimmNot sure what the term is for that other than ahistorical. Any suspects?
The usual suspects.
John WR
Yes. The idea was that railroads were a regulated monopoly, similar to local telephone services or electric/gas utilities. The problem was that the monopoly-such that it ever existed-started to go away pretty soon after substantive regulations began to occur.
Kevin C. SmithYes. The idea was that railroads were a regulated monopoly, similar to local telephone services or electric/gas utilities. The problem was that the monopoly-such that it ever existed-started to go away pretty soon after substantive regulations began to occur.
I assume you are answering my question about whether railroad regulation was based on any business model at all.
The first person I know of who advanced the idea that railroads are a natural monopoly was Charles Francis Adams. And I have to agree at ultimately Congress brought into Adams' idea. But I also have to believe that part of the regulation existed simply because Congress had the power to do it. I've never studied the legislative history of railroad regulation, though.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.