NWP SWP How did mergers work? Specifically in the first half of the 20th century 1920-1960 to be exact..
How did mergers work? Specifically in the first half of the 20th century 1920-1960 to be exact..
The railroads would have to figure out what they wanted to do.
They would file an application with the ICC.
Then the other railroads would file comments on the merger, the shippers would file comments on the mergers, the unions would file comments on the mergers.
The ICC would take years and years to hold hearings and reviews etc., etc. etc. and maybe 5-10 years later the merger might be approved, with conditions.
There are two types of mergers, end to end or parallel. An end to end merger is where the railroads touch but don't operate on the same routes. The UP/WP merger was end to end. A parallel merger was where the railroads operate between the same cities. Penn Central was a parallel merger.
End to end mergers are easier than parallel mergers. Parallel merger are generally made to eliminate redundant facilities and routes. Unfortunately with the ICC rules, eliminating those redundant routes was next to impossible. The IC and GM&O merged to form the ICG and ended up with 4 or 5 parallel N-S routes across Mississippi. Unions generally fight parallel mergers tooth and nail because it generally means fewer jobs. Shippers are normally mixed, some fight mergers and some like mergers. Other railroads generally oppose mergers unless they can get something out of it, like trackage rights.
If you think that you got the unions and shippers "on board" that probably means everybody showed up at the meeting in chariots pulled by flying unicorns that traveled across rainbows.
What the railroads did was to buy interest in the other railroads as to assert control without an out right merger. That's why there were "Lines", New York Central Lines, Missouri Pacific Lines. Those were collections of railroads that coordintaed operations but technically hadn't merged.
The UP and CRIP proposed a merger in 1964, but it wasn't approved until 1974 with additonal conditions. By then the economics had chaged so that the merger wasn't as advantageous and the proposal was never enacted. The SP and ATSF attempted a merger but they jumped the gun on assuming it would be approved and it was turned down. The Penn Central merged but they couldn't eliminate unprofitable redundant properties or reduce head count (combined with some really bad management) so by the time they got the properties coordinated, they had lost so much money they went bankrupt.
There are various laws, agreements and legal decisions regarding mergers and protection of employees (New York Dock) that have to be considered.
If your railroads didn't merge for real, there was probably a reason.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Nittanny Lion .... It is true the Staggers Act greatly changed how railroad freight rates are determined. ... The big change was a shift towards contract rates instead of common carrier rates with the railroads previously belonging to groups which controlled interline rates and divisions of revenue for interline shipments.
Regarding mergers and acquisitions, the ICC was responsible for approving applications for them. The process was long and costly. When I worked for CN's GTW, I wrote portions of the applications to the ICC to acquire the DT&I and also to acquire 100% ownership of D&TSL. (GTW previously owned 50% of D&TSL.) . It was quite a chore. It even included an environmnetal impact study to comply with regulations. The DT&I acquisiton was in 1980 following the old ICC rules. Staggers was enacted in 1980 also.
Here is what the US Congress says in its summary of Staggers regarding mergers and acquistions. .... "Sets forth procedures by which the Commission shall approve applications for consolidation, merger, and acquisition of control of and by rail carriers. " ... That is on the summary page. The Act, of course, is a very long document . The ICC was later replaced with the Surface Transportation Board.
GARRY
HEARTLAND DIVISION, CB&Q RR
EVERYWHERE LOST; WE HUSTLE OUR CABOOSE FOR YOU
SeeYou190 NWP SWP I'm kinda trying to write the "history" of my railroad. Steven, don't get too hung up on the details when writing your railroad history. At least wait until you have a permanent layout. -Kevin
NWP SWP I'm kinda trying to write the "history" of my railroad.
Steven, don't get too hung up on the details when writing your railroad history.
At least wait until you have a permanent layout.
-Kevin
I agree. It seems like getting bogged down in the minutea of a fantasy RR is just one more distraction from working on real physical trains.
More paralysis of analysis. Steven. Write that down in big letters as a mantra to help you and hang it in your room:
STOP PARALYSYS OF ANALYSIS
Better to stop with the new tangents of distraction that have been the plague of the last 6 months and get out there and work on real model trains.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
In the old days railroads easily merged small railroads to form larger ones. The Santa Fe was pretty much built by buying out short lines.
From Wikipedia, Northwestern Pacific Railroad history, "The Southern Pacific and Santa Fe entered into a joint agreement in 1906 and merged 42 railroad companies between Marin and Humboldt Bay to create one railroad line stretching from Schellville, California to Eureka."*
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwestern_Pacific_Railroad
NWP SWPI'm kinda trying to write the "history" of my railroad.
.
When I was your age I wrote an extensive history of the SRATTON & GILLETTE that I would have thought was the be-all-end-all of the SGRR story.
Back then it was an N scale Appalachian Coal Hauler set in 1968. Oh how things have changed...
Now the only history the SGRR has is "It is a class 1 railroad that runs through this town right here, and by the way, it is August 3rd, 1954."
Your railroad will change. Having a history set in stone will stagnate your creativity.
Be flexible. In 30 years you will have a better handle on what you want to model. Write the detailed/final history then.
Living the dream.
BATMANYou can read about real life ones on the internet. Just go to company websites and read about them. Without a "Business Law Degree," your eyes will glaze over after the first paragraph.
Thankfully Trains Magazine does a good job covering mergers in simple layman's terms.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Heartland Division CB&Q Mergers and acquistions were controlled by the Interstare Commerce Commision until railroads were deregulated with the Staggers Act of 1980. (ICC was created by Congress in 1887.) .... There were not very many mergers and acquistions before 1980 because of the lengthy and costly process required in order to gain ICC approval. ... After 1980, the companies combined into the large railroads of today.
Mergers and acquistions were controlled by the Interstare Commerce Commision until railroads were deregulated with the Staggers Act of 1980. (ICC was created by Congress in 1887.) .... There were not very many mergers and acquistions before 1980 because of the lengthy and costly process required in order to gain ICC approval. ... After 1980, the companies combined into the large railroads of today.
Deregulation didn't really impact the ability to conduct mergers and acquisitions. Staggers was almost entirely over the railroad's ability to set their own freight rates. Mergers and so on would have been outside the ICC's pervue anyhow and been in the SEC's world.
i had read that the Reading had control for a period of time of the New Jersey Central and Lehigh Valley, later loosing it presumablyby simply buying stock in the those RRs. It later became controlled by the B&O for a period of time.
not the same as a merger, but is there much difference?
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
You can read about real life ones on the internet. Just go to company websites and read about them. Without a "Business Law Degree," your eyes will glaze over after the first paragraph.
Check Wiki for the short and sweet explanations. No two mergers are the same and they fill rooms with documents.
What shape are rocks and how many sizes do they come in is the same kind of question. The devil is in the details and those are extensive in business.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
NWP SWPIs wanted to merge into one large system what would be the obstacles??? If railroad execs got unions and shippers on board would that help???
The Brotherhoods will want job security but,the ones that have the most say is the shippers/receivers because they want ensured rail service and don't forget other railroads may insist on trackage rights to some Cities and the short lines wants to be ensured their inbound cars will arrive in a timely fashion and empty car request will not go unheeded.
And after that you meet with the Feds and they can ok the merger or axe it for any just concern from the involved States and the shippers/receivers .
I'm not sure that they'd be considered mergers, but roads like the New York Central or Southern Pacific, for example, were comprised of many smaller roads. And don't forget Penn Central and later, Conrail. The links will take you to brief histories of both, showing some of the early components of both roads
Wayne
How did mergers work? Specifically in the first half of the 20th century 1920-1960 to be exact... if three class Is wanted to merge into one large system what would be the obstacles??? If railroad execs got unions and shippers on board would that help??? I'm kinda trying to write the "history" of my railroad... thanks in advance...
Steve
If everything seems under control, you're not going fast enough!