Trains.com

Historical Railroad mergers you would have created

14007 views
94 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    June 2007
  • From: Brooklyn Center, MN.
  • 702 posts
Posted by Los Angeles Rams Guy on Tuesday, November 17, 2015 2:58 PM

It depends what time frame you're talking about but I can make my list nonetheless:

1.  Grand Trunk + Milwaukee Road - Still a bloody shame, IMHO, that this didn't go through.  Will always blame CNW for this one.

2.  UP + CNW + PRR - The "U.S. Highway 30 Merger".  Hey, two out of three ain't bad.

3.  BN + ICG - To this day I still don't understand BN's preoccupation with Frisco. 

4.  ATSF + NYC - In response to #2.

 

I've also been intrigued with the possibility of MILW + EL as F3A suggested or maybe even an ATSF + MILW + NYC combo.  

 

 

 

"Beating 'SC is not a matter of life or death. It's more important than that." Former UCLA Head Football Coach Red Sanders
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, November 16, 2015 12:09 PM

1 - Milwaukee Road and Erie-Lackawanna

2 - Lehigh Valley and Canadian National

3 - B&O and Missouri Pacific

  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Rhode Island
  • 2,289 posts
Posted by carnej1 on Monday, November 16, 2015 11:24 AM

Per the question about who could force the C,M,St. P & P to merge;

The Road's stockholders and management.....

 As a previous poster pointed out there was a proposal during the 1960's to merge the Milwaukee with the C&NW as well as another one to combine Milw/C&NW/Rock Island (which was to include selling the Rock's lines south of Kansas City to ATSF).

 I know the latter idea was put forward by the Northwestern's president and I suspect it was an attempt to counter the UP-Rock Island proposal..

"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock

  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Rhode Island
  • 2,289 posts
Posted by carnej1 on Monday, November 16, 2015 11:16 AM

K4sPRR

In the 1950's.  PRR/N&W/NKP, the PRR and N&W is a no brainer as the PRR was the majority stock holder and similar in operation and commodities.  Adding the NKP the "Pennsylvania Western" would of resulted in a more competitive route along the Great Lake region and direct route west to Chicago on a now expanded C&P line.  West of Ft. Wayne the NKP line could be eliminated.

 

 

K4sPRR

In the 1950's.  PRR/N&W/NKP, the PRR and N&W is a no brainer as the PRR was the majority stock holder and similar in operation and commodities.  Adding the NKP the "Pennsylvania Western" would of resulted in a more competitive route along the Great Lake region and direct route west to Chicago on a now expanded C&P line.  West of Ft. Wayne the NKP line could be eliminated.

 

 

I believe the actual proposed merger was PRR/N&W/Wabash. This is because the Pennsy had a controlling interest in both the other railroads.

 The concept was a response to the C&O/NYC merger proposal but that was blocked by the ICC and PRR didn't press it's case.....

 Ultimately of course, the disastrous Penn Central merger was allowed. 

 In Rush Loving's book "The Men who Loved Trains" he makes the claim that combining NYC/C&O and allowing the PRR proposal would have been far healthier for the Northeastern Railroad system than PC was and would have resulted in a situation somewhat akin to what exists now after NS and CSX split Conrail.

"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Along the Big 4 in the Midwest
  • 536 posts
Posted by K4sPRR on Monday, November 16, 2015 7:14 AM

In the 1950's.  PRR/N&W/NKP, the PRR and N&W is a no brainer as the PRR was the majority stock holder and similar in operation and commodities.  Adding the NKP the "Pennsylvania Western" would of resulted in a more competitive route along the Great Lake region and direct route west to Chicago on a now expanded C&P line.  West of Ft. Wayne the NKP line could be eliminated.

 

  • Member since
    June 2011
  • 2 posts
Posted by CrossTieWalker on Sunday, November 15, 2015 11:54 PM

Yes, it is a puzzle. I, too, have often wondered why there was such reluctance to pare off portions of some merger partners if antitrust was an issue. The only examples I can think of before the 1980s are the split of the C&EI between Mopac and L&N in 1969 and the first major shortline spinoffs related to Conrail in 1976.

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Sunday, November 15, 2015 10:40 PM

Andrew Falconer

The Milwaukee Road should have had to have been merged into another railroad by 1975, before the maintenance dropped-off.

 

Who could have forced a merger?

Johnny

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Vicksburg, Michigan
  • 2,303 posts
Posted by Andrew Falconer on Sunday, November 15, 2015 10:34 PM

The Milwaukee Road should have had to have been merged into another railroad by 1975, before the maintenance dropped-off.

Andrew

Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Sterling Heights, Michigan
  • 1,691 posts
Posted by SD60MAC9500 on Sunday, November 15, 2015 9:34 AM

D.Carleton

One merger that could have happened was C&NW and the MILW. Basically the corporate parent of C&NW offered the railroad to MILW. For whatever reason the MILW didn't bite. Imagine a Chicago, Milwaukee & North Western that got its act together and hung on long enough to be included into today's UP.

 

 

This more than likely wasn't on the mind of KCS at the time. But When BN opened up the Powder River Basin, with C&NW coming on board later. Wonder why KCS didn't try to buy or merge with C&NW. Since KCS ended up being a recipient of Powder River coal traffic. This would have given them they're own right of way plus the entire haul. Instead of relying on interchange with BN and C&NW. They could have just upgraded the Cowboy line. I'm sure that wouldn't have required much investment. 

Rahhhhhhhhh!!!!
  • Member since
    April 2002
  • From: Northern Florida
  • 1,429 posts
Posted by SALfan on Saturday, November 14, 2015 10:26 PM

D.Carleton

One merger that could have happened was C&NW and the MILW. Basically the corporate parent of C&NW offered the railroad to MILW. For whatever reason the MILW didn't bite. Imagine a Chicago, Milwaukee & North Western that got its act together and hung on long enough to be included into today's UP.

 

MILW wanted to merge with CNW, but mgmt cut maintenance below the level of sustainability to raise MILW's stock price and thereby assure they ran the merged RR.  Don't know why the merger didn't happen, but by then MILW was in such bad shape it couldn't survive.

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,901 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Saturday, November 14, 2015 9:36 PM

dakotafred

UP-Rock Island before the RI had 10 years to fall apart. RI, whatever its historical missteps, had the population, agricultural and industrial centers, and would have gotten UP into Chicago 30 years before CNW did.

Thank gummint for the likes of the Quad Cities, Iowa City, Newton and Des Moines enjoying branch-line status today. Little wonder I-80 is so busy through there. 

 

Those customers on the exRI that still use rail are probably better off with the IAIS then UP.  It's not that IAIS provides better service, although it probably does, but that many of the customers probably don't have enough traffic to interest the UP.

Jeff 

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 1,199 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Saturday, November 14, 2015 9:25 PM

One merger that could have happened was C&NW and the MILW. Basically the corporate parent of C&NW offered the railroad to MILW. For whatever reason the MILW didn't bite. Imagine a Chicago, Milwaukee & North Western that got its act together and hung on long enough to be included into today's UP.

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 1,199 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Saturday, November 14, 2015 9:19 PM

Murphy Siding

     A related quetion-  Had the Southern Pacific / Santa Fe merger gone through, would it have succeeded in doing what its planners thought it would accomplish?

The SPSF proposal was wrought by the same ethos that brought us Penn Central and Seaboard Coast Line. Bungling by those who proposed it led to ICC rejection and we should be thankful. Ironically, SPSF would have placed 75% of trackage in California in the hands of one company and they rationalized this by noting that 75% of Florida's track became one company with SCL. California, you're welcome.

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Saturday, November 14, 2015 1:51 PM

Definitely, Rock Island - Milwaukee Road - Southern Pacific would have been a great merger, in my humble opinion.    Possibly add in the D&RGW as a complete central corridor.    

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • 4,557 posts
Posted by Convicted One on Saturday, November 14, 2015 12:14 PM

SD60MAC9500
Wabash+Frisco looks like a formidable line

 

Nickel Plate + GM&O might be another interesting combination

 

And add Rock Island to either this or the earlier mentioned Wabash+Frisco union, and you have some interesting possibilities.  (super bridge)

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Sterling Heights, Michigan
  • 1,691 posts
Posted by SD60MAC9500 on Saturday, November 14, 2015 9:51 AM

NorthWest

NKP+EL. The EL needed a bigger Midwestern network, the NKP access to New York City.

 

Yeah Erie did need a larger Midwestern presence. I had envisioned Erie merging with the Wabash instead of Delaware Lackawanna and Western. Giving it access to the Michigan auto industry and Wabash's (Used trackage rights across southern Ontario to reach Buffalo) Canadian traffic. I could see a Erie+Wabash+DT&I merger. The DT&I inclusion would give it a direct link to Detroit without a roundabout way. Plus access to southern Ohio coal.

Rahhhhhhhhh!!!!
  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Sterling Heights, Michigan
  • 1,691 posts
Posted by SD60MAC9500 on Saturday, November 14, 2015 9:19 AM

Convicted One

Here's one that I would have liked to see.

 

 

 

Also, Erie/Milwaukee....the "throw away transcon".

 

 

Nice map :-). Wabash+Frisco looks like a formidable line. Midwest autos, steel and grain to the South. Not too mention serving oil and gas heavy Oklahoma and Texas.

Rahhhhhhhhh!!!!
  • Member since
    December 2009
  • 1,751 posts
Posted by dakotafred on Saturday, November 14, 2015 6:28 AM

NorthWest

NKP+EL. The EL needed a bigger Midwestern network, the NKP access to New York City.

 

They already cooperated on passenger service Buffalo-NYC; don't remember if they also did so on freight. (Have to revisit my John Rehor.) Bet NKP Guy would know.

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Friday, November 13, 2015 6:02 PM

NKP+EL. The EL needed a bigger Midwestern network, the NKP access to New York City.

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • 4,557 posts
Posted by Convicted One on Friday, November 13, 2015 6:01 PM

Here's one that I would have liked to see.

 

 

 

Also, Erie/Milwaukee....the "throw away transcon".

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Friday, November 13, 2015 4:51 PM

     A related quetion-  Had the Southern Pacific / Santa Fe merger gone through, would it have succeeded in doing what its planners thought it would accomplish?

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 1,199 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Friday, November 13, 2015 3:11 PM

Deggesty

Did the ACL moves its headquarters from Wilmington to Jacksonville before the merger with the SAL? Whenever my mother mentioned writing for a pass, she always spoke of writing to Wilmington (my father worked in the Tampa Shops).

ACL moved their HQ to Jacksonville in 1956, over 10 years before the merger was consumated. The building on Water Street that has served as the main corporate office for ACL, SCL, SBD and now CSX was finished in 1960.

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Friday, November 13, 2015 2:51 PM

Did the ACL moves its headquarters from Wilmington to Jacksonville before the merger with the SAL? Whenever my mother mentioned writing for a pass, she always spoke of writing to Wilmington (my father worked in the Tampa Shops).

Johnny

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 1,199 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Friday, November 13, 2015 1:21 PM

blue streak 1

Here in the southeast a puzzle was the ACL - SAL merger.  Why SOU RR did not get some of the SAL has always been a puzzle.  That would have given Florida 2 competing RRs instead of the CSX mostly and the independent FEC on east coast.  .

As the merger was considered the Southern Railway petitioned the ICC for three concessions: 1) Southern already had trackage rights from Hardeeville to Savannah and asked for one of the two parallel lines between Savannah and Jacksonville; 2) a line between Jacksonville and Tampa through Central Florida and 3) a line from Tampa to the Florida/Georgia border. The ICC said no. Why?

Remember the context of time we are talking about. This all happened during the same era that Southern was fighting the Big John hopper car case essentially poking the ICC in the eye. ACL was a huge corporation headquartered in Florida and Tallahassee did not want to cross them. The city of Tampa did put up a fight but could not overcome Federal and State hubris. The argument was made that there was nor would ever be enough traffic in Central Florida, specifically west-central Florida, to justify two railroads. But the trackage requisition by Southern would not have been a gift; they would have to buy it. If the traffic didn't pan out then Southern would have been stuck with the losses and the petitions for abandonment.

Basically railroading in my part of the Sunshine State dried up over the fight for the principles of rate regulation embodied by Big John and I think of this every time I see the one preserved in Spencer. The regulatory bodies that were supposed to ensure balanced trade and the good of the public with indiscriminate fairness to all the parties involved failed miserably. Was the Big John victory worth the losses of a bad merger? We still have railroads over 50 years later and they are doing reasonably well and as a railroader I am grateful although sometimes it is bittersweet.

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Friday, November 13, 2015 11:33 AM

Here in the southeast a puzzle was the ACL - SAL merger.  Why SOU RR did not get some of the SAL has always been a puzzle.  That would have given Florida 2 competing RRs instead of the CSX mostly and the independent FEC on east coast.  .

  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Rhode Island
  • 2,289 posts
Posted by carnej1 on Friday, November 13, 2015 11:19 AM

The proposed UP-Rock Island merger made a lot of operational sense but the other Midwestern Class 1's that connected UP with Chicago realized it would potentially kill a vital source of revenue and fought it tooth and nail. I personally believe the merger should have been approved..

 The various railroads that co-operated in "Alphabet Route" freight service would have made an impressive system:

http://www.american-rails.com/alphabet-route.html

 Missouri Pacific/D&RGW/Western Pacific is also an interesting idea although probably by now either BNSF or UP would have merged  the system.

"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 1,199 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Friday, November 13, 2015 9:20 AM

Given my druthers (and a big heap of hindsight) the SAL would have wound up under the Southern banner and ACL would have gotten the Central of Georgia. After that the L&N, which was already in the ACL camp, would have gotten its share of the Chicago & Eastern Illinois and Southern the Monon. It's not perfect but would have yielded a better balance than what did happen.

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Vicksburg, Michigan
  • 2,303 posts
Posted by Andrew Falconer on Friday, November 13, 2015 1:11 AM

The NYC merged with SCL and L&N to make it possible to cover more territory.

 

The B&O and C&O taking over the GM&O since the future IC operators decided to dismantle most of the GM&O in the coming decades.

 

The PRR would have ended up being controlled and merged into the N&W and Southern Railway in the 1960's to keep operating.

Andrew

Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer

  • Member since
    September 2011
  • 6,449 posts
Posted by MidlandMike on Thursday, November 12, 2015 10:36 PM

Before the PC fiasco, C&O wanted to merge with NYC.  ICC nixed it.  If it had happened it would have created something close to what happened with the Conrail split, but C&O/NYC would have kept the entire water level route, which would have been a better balance than what NS eventually got.

Also, I would liked to have seen D&RGW kept out of UP, to at least give an impression of some competition in the central corridor.

  • Member since
    December 2009
  • 1,751 posts
Posted by dakotafred on Thursday, November 12, 2015 8:28 PM

UP-Rock Island before the RI had 10 years to fall apart. RI, whatever its historical missteps, had the population, agricultural and industrial centers, and would have gotten UP into Chicago 30 years before CNW did.

Thank gummint for the likes of the Quad Cities, Iowa City, Newton and Des Moines enjoying branch-line status today. Little wonder I-80 is so busy through there. 

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy