Can anyone think of a situation in which the Reading could have survived the 1970s intact and independent? How about the Erie-lackawanna? I know NYSW was almost part of conrail, could Reading have survived in a similar state, and be operating today as a Class II?
The Beaverton, Fanno Creek & Bull Mountain Railroad
"Ruby Line Service"
Reading was becoming a glorified terminal road with all of the expenses and limited revenue implied in that definition. The same thing had already happened to Jersey Central. Both wound up in Chapter 77 proceedings for that reason. Survival as an independent was not in the cards.
Possibly if the Staggers Act had been passed ten years earlier removing a lot of the onerous regulations railroads had to live with then maybe the Reading and the E-L might have survived, but I'm not sure.
The loss of the anthracite coal traffic was a big, big hit to both 'roads bottom line, and add that to the "Rust Belt" phenomenon that was hitting the Northeast at the time was too much for all the 'roads up there to bear. It's been said with some justification that the railroads in the Northeast were acutally overbuilt, by that they mean there really were too many of them. When the area was an industrial powerhouse it didn't matter, there was enough business to go around, but as soon as all that business began to disappear it was the "crack of doom."
The latest issue of "Classic Trains" has a fine article on the formation of Conrail and all the multiple bankruptcies of the Northeast 'roads. It's a good article to read if you want to learn the "whys and wherefores" of Conrails formation without majoring on the subject. I recommend it highly.
Besides the Penn coal traffic. the other Reading traffic source was as part of the "Alphabet Route" between the midwest and NY and New England. They lost their western connection when the WM was swallowed by CSX., and on the east end the LV, L&H and CNJ came into Conrail. The best thing that happened to the Reading mainline, is that it became the primary route of Conrail between Harrisburg and NJ/NY
Firelock76 It's been said with some justification that the railroads in the Northeast were acutally overbuilt, by that they mean there really were too many of them. When the area was an industrial powerhouse it didn't matter, there was enough business to go around, but as soon as all that business began to disappear it was the "crack of doom."
It's been said with some justification that the railroads in the Northeast were acutally overbuilt, by that they mean there really were too many of them. When the area was an industrial powerhouse it didn't matter, there was enough business to go around, but as soon as all that business began to disappear it was the "crack of doom."
If there is traffic to support a line, it is not 'overbuilt'. It is only when the traffic leaves that the line can be defined as overbuilt. In the NE, the traffic the lines were built to handle vanished - thus the overbuilt designation. When all the traffic existed, there wasn't capacity in the other lines to handle the traffic if another line had not been built. In the 20th Century, for the most part, lines were built to handle known traffic, not to generate traffic by being built as happened in the 19th Century.
The same things we are seeing today with the decrease in coal traffic and the actions of CSX & NS responding to the lost traffic.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Balt's absolutely right, I should have given it a bit more thought before I put "pen to paper."
Thing is, I was thinking in terms of the 19th Century when railroad overbuilding led to the Panic of 1857. That's the problem when you read as much history as I do, you start having flashbacks to eras you never lived in!
Maybe I'll try sci-fy for a while...
didn't JP Morgan gain control of several Northeast Railroads and try to reoganize them so that they didn't have redundant routes and were more efficient as a whole?
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
gregcDidn't JP Morgan gain control of several Northeast Railroads and try to reoganize them so that they didn't have redundant routes and were more efficient as a whole?
I might have some fun by saying that Archie McLeod tried this first -- with the Reading as the centerpiece! -- but blew it up by trying to keep Morgan & Co. out of the picture.
I'm also tempted to ask whether this is not exactly what was done combining 35-odd roads into the Southern?
Morgan had a 'railroad guy' who was in charge of the strategic investment and 'synergism' of the railroad holdings. He died suddenly at the beginning of the 20th Century, and Morgan never adequately replaced him -- instead, you had all the fun of Mellen's New Haven, the Hampden Railroad shenanigans, the idea that a NYW&B butt-ending into the El and subway is a correct answer for commuters...
It might be argued one way or the other that when Morgan's bank underwrote the van Sweringens they had learned something about finding the right railroaders. Certainly that was true with respect to Bernet, the AMC, Underwood, etc. On the other hand... it was not true with respect to the overall empire, which is where 'efficient as a whole' would ultimately count when talking about banking participation.
Of course Morgan is famous for 'brokering' the midnight conference on the Corsair that led to the NYC&HR acquiring the West Shore and, ultimately, the South Penn becoming part of the Pennsylvania Turnpike. But it might be argued that, in the long run, the South Penn's route might have been more useful as a railroad than the PRR's; very often, the result of 'rightsizing' when capacity or demand goes away is not the best solution, or even the 'operationally' most fit to survive...
As schlimm pointed out in another thread, there are times when maintaining technical 'overcapacity' is desirable -- keeping a full bidirectionally-signaled double track, for example, instead of passing sidings with length trimmed to minimum price. I was sad when I first found out about DL&W-NKP as the 'fifth system' in the Ripley plan ... what a railroad THAT might have been, albeit assuming that there had been an AMC to define some of its motive power most effectively.
"Overbuilt" is - what was it, 7 railroads from Chicago to Omaha, or something like that ? - never enough traffic to support more than 2 or 3 of them.
BaltACD correctly describes the situation where the traffic was there - for a long time even, not just a short-term 'bubble' - but has now gone away. I'd call that "stranded assets" - no way to recover more than a fraction of its value. What it really needs then is 'rationalization', 'right-sizing', or 'downsizing', or some other euphemism or business buzz-word to describe reducing the scale of the enterprise to match the volume. I don't know what you'd call not having done that (for whatever reason).
- Paul North.
Paul_D_North_JrWhat it really needs then is 'rationalization', 'right-sizing', or 'downsizing', or some other euphemism
didn't government regulations get in the way of doing just this ?
I'd have to say "overbuilt vs. underbuilt" really is a matter of perspective and place in time. In the 1850's there was a railroad building craze in the North that led to over 30,000 miles of track being laid by the end of the decade, definately more than was needed for the available traffic, which led to bankruptcies and the 1857 financial panic. Comes the Civil War, and overnight all those white elephant 'roads became vitally important, both for the Unions war effort and for the industrial boom caused by the war. The industrial boom continued well into the 20th Century and was helped quite a bit, if not vitally so, by all that trackage you could site factories next to or close by.
Comes the end of the century and the "Rust Belt" phenomenon suddenly all that trackage and all those various railroads just aren't needed anymore, so now we can say the 'roads were overbuilt.
There's no right or wrong here, as I said it really comes down to time and circumstances.
gregc Paul_D_North_Jr What it really needs then is 'rationalization', 'right-sizing', or 'downsizing', or some other euphemism didn't government regulations get in the way of doing just this ?
Paul_D_North_Jr What it really needs then is 'rationalization', 'right-sizing', or 'downsizing', or some other euphemism
They sure did, for various reasons to numerous to go into here. Suffice to say abandonments of unprofitable lines were next to impossible to effect.
Firelock76Suffice to say abandonments of unprofitable lines were next to impossible to effect.
KBCpresidentCan anyone think of a situation in which the Reading could have survived the 1970s intact and independent? How about the Erie-lackawanna?
So if the government didn't get in the way, Conrail may not have existed and some of these railroads or mergers of them (e.g. RDG, CNJ and LV) make still exist today.
gregc Firelock76 Suffice to say abandonments of unprofitable lines were next to impossible to effect. KBCpresident Can anyone think of a situation in which the Reading could have survived the 1970s intact and independent? How about the Erie-lackawanna? So if the government didn't get in the way, Conrail may not have existed and some of these railroads or mergers of them (e.g. RDG, CNJ and LV) make still exist today.
Firelock76 Suffice to say abandonments of unprofitable lines were next to impossible to effect.
KBCpresident Can anyone think of a situation in which the Reading could have survived the 1970s intact and independent? How about the Erie-lackawanna?
It's entirely possible, but we'll never know at this point. Sad fact of the matter is it took the Penn Central collapse and all the other cascading bankruptcies to wake up the Congress for some positive action. Sometimes it takes a 2x4 to the back of peoples heads to get their attention. The Northeast rail meltdown was just that 2x4.
EL -might- have been able to function as a super-slim conduit for intermodal and unit trains had that that traffic existed at a level in the 1970's that would support such a system (that is, becoming the conveyor belt that John Kneiling advocated). Today's ex NYC main from Cleveland to the greater Boston/NYC has essentially become just that.EL just didn't have the capital reserves to last long enough for the 21st Century railroad climate to come into existance. Reading, on the other hand, had no chance as an independent. Being a terminating road was a huge disadvantage.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.