Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal One has to wonder what the rail picture would have looked like today if legislation to reduce regulation had been implemented in 1960, 20 years before Staggers. Would Milwaukee have survived, or would it have been run into the ground by the Hill lines? It sounds as if Milwaukee's mid-level managers were pretty aggressive in recruiting new business. Would Milwaukee have been the dominate Northern Tier line, would it have been absorbed by the Hill lines (assuming ICC/STB approval), or would some other Class I power have made Milwaukee a prize catch? I'm not so sure that a 1960's Staggers wouldn't have resulted in the same Western U.S. duopoly we have now, since I believe the sole reason for Staggers was to reduce the number of Class I's to increase railroad pricing power, and not to provide a basis of competition among carriers. Whether the Milwaukee PCE corridor would have remained is the question, depending on if an eventual merger partner other than the Hill lines had assumed that asset. [/quote] When rolling back time to the 60s, 70s, or even the 80s, I think it's important to consider the world political situation. China was a cold-war enemy(some in the current administration still feel that way). There was some trade with Japan and Hong Kong, but neither S. Korea or Malaysia were major exporters. I doubt few would have foreseen Chinese exports to Walmart accounting for a good chunk of our trade deficit. Intermodal container traffic was started by the ocean carriers, not by the railroads. Port facilities for this type of trade is usually the responsibility of the various port authorities, again not the railroads.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag