Last night, I re-watched this turkey with my wife, who is in marketing. She could not stop laughing.
When most, if not all, corporate videos proclaim huge success stories, it is a bit sobering to view this film that focuses upon everything that is wrong. And there was plenty. The film doesn't have a bunch of flashy charts but gets its point across, I think. The most poignant comment being (from a roadmaster?) at the end “To spend 34 years beating your brains out, to end up with something like this?” And there were other roadmasters and plenty of others at numerous levels trying in any way they could to keep the operation afloat. You see some of their faces.
They were sad years and the reasons for such precipitous decline are legion; but the decline had begun decades before and merely became so noticeable because of PC's size. I worked through all but the final 6 months of Penn Central and believe the road did its best to carry on in spite of horrendous upper management, work rule restrictions and impediments from huge passenger expenses to Hurricane Agnes and an indifferent regulatory structure. What happened was inevitable, given the long-standing attitude that railroads were “crying wolf”. When the wolf came to dinner the devastation was nearly complete, as it seems to take a significant crisis to generate any meaningful response.
For me, this film illustrates the plight of those years – perhaps a little too graphically but it was real. What was PC supposed to do? Paint some locomotives in heritage schemes and ballyhoo its bright future? It was a death song and even this wasn't enough until the entire northeast rail scene fell apart.
Shock ControlEither way, the film is a total fail.
Have we really established who the intended audience of this film was?
I went back and read a very informative article in the February 1974 issue of Fortune magazine titled "A Costly Rescue for the Northeast Railroads", I highly recommend it to anyone having access.
The argument supporting the need for the government to be involved was fought and won in 1973. As Jeff pointed out earlier, threats to liquidate were made... On Jan 1, 1973 trustees of the PC bankruptcy advised Judge Fullam that the railroad could not be resuscitated without federal assistance. Both the judge and trustees were growing increasingly concerned with their responsibility to protect the creditors share of PC assets, even if that meant stopping the trains and liquidating the railroad.
Eventually, in early 1973, Fullam did order the PC to stop operations and commence liquidation by Oct 1 of that year,.. UNLESS government assistence was approved in the interim.
Ultimately, on Jan 2 1974 Nixon signed the 3R act which defined a Consolidated Rail Corporation, and created USRA.
Therefore, it is a little challenging to credit this 1974 film for the creation of Conrail. That decision had already been made.
What remained to be determined was how large the government's contribution would be.
Two eastern railroads that were still solvent at the time, N&W and Chessie, were concerned about having to compete with the government.....and were opposed to substantial assistance. While other roads were less concerned, the western roads in particular were primarily concerned with maintaining existing connections.
So the real decision remaining to be made in 1974, was how large the assistance package was going to be.
If this film we are now discussing was created as a lobbying tool aimed at those who were going to make that determination.....then perhaps this "tear jerker" format was appropriate?
Suddenly the concept of testimonials from employees having dental impairment, seems brilliant.
Conrail was created to prevent the collapse of the entire Northeastern freight railroad network from happening. You literally had 6 major Class 1 railroads that where bankrupt and all where about to shutdown. It was either do something drastic or risk losing 1/3 of the entire nations railroad capacity at once. Even then it still took 4 years for the Government to realize that they needed to deregulate things to make a profit again.
Shock ControlConrail was created because, as the film made clear, Penn Central was failing. The film did nothing to instill any confidence in them.
Maybe that was their goal...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
BaltACDThe fact that ConRail was created and that the Staggers legislation was enacted makes it far from a fail. A artistic success? A blockbuster? A Icon? It was a conversation starter. The longest journeys start with the first step. That film was a first step.
It was a conversation starter. The longest journeys start with the first step. That film was a first step.
Conrail was created because, as the film made clear, Penn Central was failing. The film did nothing to instill any confidence in them.
Shock Control Murphy Siding Perhaps that's true, but the important people involved were reading the reports. Either way, the film is a total fail.
Murphy Siding Perhaps that's true, but the important people involved were reading the reports.
Either way, the film is a total fail.
The fact that ConRail was created and that the Staggers legislation was enacted makes it far from a fail. A artistic success? A blockbuster? A Icon?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Shock Control NittanyLion I think you're perceiving it backwards. They didn't make the film to make the argument that they needed help. The film was supporting visuals to an argument that was already being made. It is basically Figure 1 to go along with the reams and reams of paper spent explaining what was wrong. And lots of people in that chain would have watched ONLY the film and skipped over the paper entirely. Visuals make an impression. Reports do not. The message of the film should have focused on the positive impact of Penn Central. The woe-is-me tripe could have been buried on page 572 of the report.
NittanyLion I think you're perceiving it backwards. They didn't make the film to make the argument that they needed help. The film was supporting visuals to an argument that was already being made. It is basically Figure 1 to go along with the reams and reams of paper spent explaining what was wrong.
They didn't make the film to make the argument that they needed help. The film was supporting visuals to an argument that was already being made. It is basically Figure 1 to go along with the reams and reams of paper spent explaining what was wrong.
And lots of people in that chain would have watched ONLY the film and skipped over the paper entirely.
Visuals make an impression. Reports do not. The message of the film should have focused on the positive impact of Penn Central. The woe-is-me tripe could have been buried on page 572 of the report.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Shock Control So did anyone watch the film, and did anyone find it as ineffective as I in its presenting a case for support?
So did anyone watch the film, and did anyone find it as ineffective as I in its presenting a case for support?
Actually, the film probably appears much more ineffective to the members of this group than it actually is because we all know a lot about the rail industry. It appears to target the politicians and others in "the powers that be" that didn't know so mcuh.
I think it's safe to say that mistakes were made on both sides by both management and the governement.
Management at both NYC and PRR did every thing humanly possible to hide their real condition starting probably ten years prior to the merger.
Then after the merger, they somehow managed to make distributions on their common stock for the first few quarters that PC was up and running. Where in the world they found the funds to do that I have no idea but some of it surely came out of track.
On the government's side, the goverment forced the railroad to continue money losing passenger operations and freight service over little used branch lines.
Then the ultimate blooper of them all was the government forced takeover of the New Haven - a true financial basket case in its own right.
The building of the Interstate Highway System surely hurt all railroads but probably hit the Northeastern railroads disproportionately hard. Eisenhower's intention was to build a pay-as-you-go system of toll superhighways but Congress had other ideas. "No, make them FREE ! Free for all Americans!"
I have always wondered what would've happened had Ike got his way. Perhaps a system of toll roads might've created a more level playing field for rail but the answer to that "what if" is that we will never know.
So, the taxpayers spent billions building the Interstates then had to spend billions more to clean up the mess.
Two great books on the subject are The Wreck of the Penn Central which is highly acclaimed but which I've never quite gotten around to reading and The Men Who Loved Trains which I have read. I think it's safe to say that both books provide a good summary and assessment of what transpired back in the era.
Regards,
Fred M. Cain
NittanyLionI think you're perceiving it backwards. They didn't make the film to make the argument that they needed help. The film was supporting visuals to an argument that was already being made. It is basically Figure 1 to go along with the reams and reams of paper spent explaining what was wrong.
I think you're perceiving it backwards.
CMStPnPYou need to read the book "The Wreck of the Penn Central". There was far more at stake then just the railroad. The railroads liquidation would have dragged the entire Northeast into a deep recession and bankrupted several large state pension funds that had invested in the NYC and PRR. Up until that bankruptcy, railroads were thought to be safe investments similar to power utilities and most had AAA ratings on their bonds. Hence Pension Funds, Insurance Companies and the like were heavily invested in both the NYC and PRR. The merger was sold to the public as a financial gold mine of cost savings between the two, which drew more people in. The bankruptcy was a watershed moment for it's size in assets and the specific fact it was a large railroad.
Respectfully, it's not about what I need to read. It is about making a compelling case to the entities that controlled the purse strings. The film is a complete failure in this regard.
The film should be shown in grants 101, marketing 101, PR 101, and speech 101 classes as an example of how not to make a persuasive argument.
So, I guess this is a clearcut case where regulators failed to anticipate the downside for the American public that might result from "too big to fail" entities that might result from a merger?
CMStPnP Shock Control Agreed. At no point did they indicate how saving the railroad would benefit society at large. It was entirely a woe-is-me argument. You need to read the book "The Wreck of the Penn Central". There was far more at stake then just the railroad. The railroads liquidation would have dragged the entire Northeast into a deep recession and bankrupted several large state pension funds that had invested in the NYC and PRR. Up until that bankruptcy, railroads were thought to be safe investments similar to power utilities and most had AAA ratings on their bonds. Hence Pension Funds, Insurance Companies and the like were heavily invested in both the NYC and PRR. The merger was sold to the public as a financial gold mine of cost savings between the two, which drew more people in. The bankruptcy was a watershed moment for it's size in assets and the specific fact it was a large railroad.
Shock Control Agreed. At no point did they indicate how saving the railroad would benefit society at large. It was entirely a woe-is-me argument.
You need to read the book "The Wreck of the Penn Central". There was far more at stake then just the railroad. The railroads liquidation would have dragged the entire Northeast into a deep recession and bankrupted several large state pension funds that had invested in the NYC and PRR. Up until that bankruptcy, railroads were thought to be safe investments similar to power utilities and most had AAA ratings on their bonds. Hence Pension Funds, Insurance Companies and the like were heavily invested in both the NYC and PRR. The merger was sold to the public as a financial gold mine of cost savings between the two, which drew more people in. The bankruptcy was a watershed moment for it's size in assets and the specific fact it was a large railroad.
With a company as pathetically bankrupt as PC was, why would anyone expect them to produce a top level 'cry for help' movie. To make and produce a first class movie requires first class artists to write, produce and film such a movie.
PC could only access 3rd rank talent for the movie and it really shows.
Shock ControlAgreed. At no point did they indicate how saving the railroad would benefit society at large. It was entirely a woe-is-me argument.
What's going to happen now? Two North American trunk line carriers? One major carrier that's regulated like AT&T used to be?
Flintlock76 I can't help but wonder how many ICC regulators wound up with egg on their faces, that is, the ones who approved the PRR/NYC merger? The merger's approved, then a few years later this film full of carnage comes out?
I can't help but wonder how many ICC regulators wound up with egg on their faces, that is, the ones who approved the PRR/NYC merger? The merger's approved, then a few years later this film full of carnage comes out?
Would have likely happened anyway, even without the merger. The merger likely exacerbated things however, as the red team and the green team couldn't get along.. right on up to the senior managers who were of a different temperment. I guess combining two large failing companies into one colossus was bound to fail.. but who would have known?
NittanyLionWho should have had egg on their faces was the PRR and NYC for essentially lying to themselves about their true nature as real estate firms that happened to own railroads, not railroads that happened to own real estate.
No argument with you there. Al Perlman warned the merger was a bad idea, but no-one at the NYC would listen. That's the reason Al came out of the whole debacle with his reputation pretty intact.
Few to none. Most of those problems would have emerged one way or another, merger or no merger.
Who should have had egg on their faces was the PRR and NYC for essentially lying to themselves about their true nature as real estate firms that happened to own railroads, not railroads that happened to own real estate.
Whether or not the movie made a difference, a serious move toward dereg didn't really begin until Congress got stuck with covering Conrail's losses, which weren't much less than those of the six predecessors prior to April 1, 1976.
This was six years before Staggers, and the railroads were pretty much hamstrung with regulations that prevented them from getting the rate increases they needed. They also couldn't sell off unprofitable lines or get their labor numbers out of the steam age. Worst hit were the lines in the Northeast with their short hauls.. I guess the film was a last ditch effort at obtaining help.. i.e. we can't charge more because you won't allow us to.. we can't cut our labor costs because you won't allow us to.. we can't get rid of unprofitable business or aboandon unproftiable lines because you won't allow us to.. so.. here you go.. give us some money to keep going..
Sometimes, appeals such as this have insidious motives.
Perhaps you might remember when in 1961 FCC chairman Newton Minow gave a speech now famously known as the "Vast Wasteland" speech, in which he criticized broadcast TV as being a procession of game shows and formula comedies about totally unbelievable families..... etc ...many at the time insisted upon regarding the speech as an unprovoked attack on Ward Cleaver.
When in reality, the Government had been looking to better exploit the new medium of television for a few years, but sought a smokescreen to shield itself from potential allegations of propaganda. What the government was actually saying was "get ready to see us spending significant money in this area, and here is the reason why"....and almost overnight the Education Television Facilities Act began pouring money into National Educational Television, with the goal of expanding what had been at best a half hearted effort, into a fourth network.
The eventual fruit of that effort becoming what we now call PBS.
In similar spirit, might the video you present have been part of a grander scheme designed to make Joe Taxpayer more receptive to the government getting involved in day to day matters of railroading? That's what the video did for me, was to put me in a "well something is going to have to be done" frame of mind.
Shock ControlA general "need for railroads" is not the same as compelling, specific details on why this one particular railroad was important to this region of the nation. Focusing on rusting rails and peeling paint does not instill much confidence in the applicant organization.
I don't disagree. But sometimes a person can't see the forest for the trees.
What seems obvious to one person may not be obvious at all to another.
tree68Perhaps those who produced the film assumed that the need for railroads was a foregone conclusion, so they focussed on why the current situation was detrimental to that conclusion.
A general "need for railroads" is not the same as compelling, specific details on why this one particular railroad was important to this region of the nation. Focusing on rusting rails and peeling paint does not instill much confidence in the applicant organization.
I remember my undergrad microecon. prof in 1973 in class saying railroads weren't needed. Trucks could handle everything. As much as I loved trains, I could understand why railroads were disinvesting. There was inadequate return on capital across the whole industry. And it had three strikes against it.
Perhaps those who produced the film assumed that the need for railroads was a foregone conclusion, so they focussed on why the current situation was detrimental to that conclusion.
I just finished reading Rush Loving's "The Men Who Loved Trains" and I would recommend it to anyone who wants background on how bad Penn Central really was. The pages of TRAINS from 1969 to about 1976 also provide context for those who weren't around during the Northeastern railroad near-collapse.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.