Originally posted by gabe [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, May 5, 2005 2:41 PM Okay. Let me try: (1) Southern RR - survived. The CNO&TP plus growth in the south should have been enough to keep going (2) N&W RR - survived. COAL! plus Detroit (3) Conrail - A close call, but having North Jersey Intermodal franchise + growth in intermodal might have been just enough (4) L&N - survived, maybe in shrunken state - coal (5) Seaboard RR - with the ACL, probably survived. w/o maybe not. (6) C&O - with the B&O dead, w/o the B&O, maybe there is enough coal to balance out competitive disadvantage with N&W (7) ICG - belly up (8) Wisconsin Central - you mean the original SOO - probably belly up, or at least in a much smaller state (9) UP - they will never die, no matter how badly they screw up - great routes and markets (10) Mopac - live as long as they have the UP on the west end (11) Western Pacific - probably dead - bridge routes do poorly in dereg environment (12) Santa Fe - Intemodal franchise Chic - LA should be enough to keep them going (13) Southern Pacific - alive, but much shrunken. UP and ATSF eat them alive (14) Frisco - same as Mopac (15) BN - alive - can you say powder river (16) Chicago North Western - alive unless UP finds a better way from Omaha to Chic - which they just might (17) CN - alive (18) SOO - the old MILW - dead I didn't give this too much thought. Tell me where I'm all wet. I won't be offended!!! -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Thursday, May 5, 2005 2:42 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed In the case of the UPRR/CNW you are aware that the UPRR was a large shareholder in the CN & W long before they merged? [:o)][:)][:p] Originally posted by gabe [ Their engines were yellow and green and their wheels went round and round too. In other words, so? [8D][:p][:D][:o)][:o)][:o)] Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Thursday, May 5, 2005 2:52 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Okay. Let me try: (1) Southern RR - survived. The CNO&TP plus growth in the south should have been enough to keep going (2) N&W RR - survived. COAL! plus Detroit (3) Conrail - A close call, but having North Jersey Intermodal franchise + growth in intermodal might have been just enough (4) L&N - survived, maybe in shrunken state - coal (5) Seaboard RR - with the ACL, probably survived. w/o maybe not. (6) C&O - with the B&O dead, w/o the B&O, maybe there is enough coal to balance out competitive disadvantage with N&W (7) ICG - belly up (8) Wisconsin Central - you mean the original SOO - probably belly up, or at least in a much smaller state (9) UP - they will never die, no matter how badly they screw up - great routes and markets (10) Mopac - live as long as they have the UP on the west end (11) Western Pacific - probably dead - bridge routes do poorly in dereg environment (12) Santa Fe - Intemodal franchise Chic - LA should be enough to keep them going (13) Southern Pacific - alive, but much shrunken. UP and ATSF eat them alive (14) Frisco - same as Mopac (15) BN - alive - can you say powder river (16) Chicago North Western - alive unless UP finds a better way from Omaha to Chic - which they just might (17) CN - alive (18) SOO - the old MILW - dead I didn't give this too much thought. Tell me where I'm all wet. I won't be offended!!! Don, I wouldn't be so arrogant to call you all wet. I consider your guess at least as good, probably better than mine. I largely agree with your contentions; but here are the few areas where I disagree: (3) I think Conrail survives, and survives well. (5) I completley agree with your Seaboard contention; but I was including the ACL--I definitely think it could not have survived without the ACL. (6) I don't think the C&O makes it under any circumstance--I think it is part of CSX's problem right now. (7) I think the IC survives--just like it did, it sheds its unprofitable lines and keeps its attractive trunk. In fact, I think the IC is the model for saying the consolidation of the industry was unnecessary. (8) I think the Wisconsin Central can and did survive. (13) I think the SP is the model--aside from the WP--for the line that couldn't make it. You can argue that UP might not be able to pull it out of its mess. I also think the industry would have been better off if the SP was disolved in bankruptcy rather than merger. Remember, when I say not survive, I am not necessarily contending a single mile of track would be pulled up. I just mean it wouldn't survive under its own flag and its lines would be divided/liquidated in bankruptcy. Thanks for responding, Gabe Reply dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Thursday, May 5, 2005 3:09 PM Hmmm...no expert either.....and when MWH comes in and slaps us around.......oh well....I can see several of the road merged with different partners... (1) Southern RR - Survivor but would eventually absorb someone else (Family lines?) (2) N&W RR - survived (3) Conrail - Agree with Don (4) L&N & (5) Seaboard RR - I still see the Family Lines occuring ..then possibly as a part of SRR. (6) C&O - survived barely, B&O a part of Conrail maybe? (7) ICG - maybe with KCS (8) Wisconsin Central - no call (9) UP - alive and kicking (10) Mopac - alive, picking up part of SP TX routes (11) Western Pacific - probably dead (12) Santa Fe & (13) Southern Pacific - I'd have predicted eventual merger..but spin off routes as a part of the deal (UP, MoPac, BN) (14) Frisco - no call (15) BN - alive - can you say powder river (16) Chicago North Western - dead (17) CN - alive (18) SOO - dead ..agree with Don ...a part of CP's gains in the US Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Thursday, May 5, 2005 3:25 PM Dan, (1) I hope Mark does come in and kick me around on this one. I am kind of missing those sorts of beatings--they are very educational. (2) I don't see how Conrail would have died. Wasn't it doing fairly well before the buyout? It certainly has an attractive core. (3) When I say don't make it I mean liquidated in bankruptcy. So that would probably affect the survivors, who would probable be doing the buying. Thanks for responding. Gabe Reply cbq9911a Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Chicagoland 465 posts Posted by cbq9911a on Thursday, May 5, 2005 4:06 PM How about taking it from another angle - considering the components of BN: Burlington - Alive due to Powder River coal. Great Northern - Alive Northern Paciic - Dead Frisco - Don't Kmow SP&S - Dead as a company, but alive as a part of GN. Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Thursday, May 5, 2005 4:24 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by cbq9911a How about taking it from another angle - considering the components of BN: Burlington - Alive due to Powder River coal. Great Northern - Alive Northern Paciic - Dead Frisco - Don't Kmow SP&S - Dead as a company, but alive as a part of GN. I can't argue with that. But it would really affect the way things were shaped on the East end. Gabe Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, May 5, 2005 5:41 PM Gabe - I'm not going to prognosticate on all of it, but perhaps if you are going to assume the STB regime happened early enough to affect the others, such as B&O, C&O, N&W, Southern, L&N, etc perhaps you also need to re-examine Conrail, not as a whole but as the sum of its parts. If deregulation (Staggers Act or similar) had happened twenty years earlier (Staggers was effective in 1980 so if you take 1960 instead) there might not have been a formation of Conrail by the government at all. The strong might simply have absorbed the weak or at least those routes worth keeping and abandoned the rest. In 1960 it was still NYC, PRR, NY,NH &H, EL (just merged in 1960), LV, CNJ and L&HR operating independently. Also the D&H, B&M, MEC, NYS&W and CN/CV need to be considered as all were involved in the big show that was the northeast. This survival question, particularly where Conrail and the pervasive government legislative scheme created to transform it into a strong new Conrail were not born yet and might never have been if the free market were allowed into the RR business sooner. It certainly makes your question a LOT more interesting. LC Reply Edit mudchicken Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Denver / La Junta 10,794 posts Posted by mudchicken on Thursday, May 5, 2005 6:53 PM Solid: SR, N&W,CR, WC, UP, MP,ATSF Shaky: L&N, SBD, B&O,BN (In spite of PRB), ICG,DRGW Dog meat: C&O, WP,SP,CNW,SOO Mudchicken Nothing is worth taking the risk of losing a life over. Come home tonight in the same condition that you left home this morning in. Safety begins with ME.... cinscocom-west Reply espeefoamer Member sinceNovember 2003 From: West Coast 4,122 posts Posted by espeefoamer on Thursday, May 5, 2005 7:01 PM SP by itself probably could not survive. With D&RGW it might have had a chance. Ride Amtrak. Cats Rule, Dogs Drool. Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, May 5, 2005 8:05 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe Dan, (1) I hope Mark does come in and kick me around on this one. I am kind of missing those sorts of beatings--they are very educational. (2) I don't see how Conrail would have died. Wasn't it doing fairly well before the buyout? It certainly has an attractive core. (3) When I say don't make it I mean liquidated in bankruptcy. So that would probably affect the survivors, who would probable be doing the buying. Thanks for responding. Gabe I think you're safe. As I recall, MWH doesn't do "what ifs" -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply mudchicken Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Denver / La Junta 10,794 posts Posted by mudchicken on Thursday, May 5, 2005 8:49 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by espeefoamer SP by itself probably could not survive. With D&RGW it might have had a chance. The combined railroad was hemorraging cash before UP bought it and the SP operating mindset was killing it as well.....doomed to fail. Mudchicken Nothing is worth taking the risk of losing a life over. Come home tonight in the same condition that you left home this morning in. Safety begins with ME.... cinscocom-west Reply LarrySmith Member sinceJune 2001 From: US 17 posts Posted by LarrySmith on Thursday, May 5, 2005 11:55 PM As I am trying to model the SP and am interested in the railroad, where can I find out what happened to it? Also, the analysis and discussion of business practices and operations for all these mergered and failed RR's might provide great case studies for business management and could help surviving roads operate more profitably. Reply passengerfan Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Central Valley California 2,841 posts Posted by passengerfan on Friday, May 6, 2005 12:45 AM Gabe I think on youe BN components you were wrong on NP why take a look at MRL. How many short lines do you know buying new power Reply nanaimo73 Member sinceApril 2005 From: Nanaimo BC Canada 4,117 posts Posted by nanaimo73 on Friday, May 6, 2005 1:30 AM Good forum Gabe. I think the NP would have built the proposed Tongue River Railroad from Miles City to the mines around Decker and Sheridan and would have been fine. The Santa Fe would have taken over the ST.L.S.F. or merged with the MP to get into St.Louis, and Memphis. Can we let Katy come in and play ? She had the best route from KC to Texas. Dale Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, May 6, 2005 7:49 AM Conrail may have been a more "iffy" proposition than many people would guess. Yes, the turnaround from the depths of PC was drastic and real, but CR, like many other RRs, was still "eating it's foot" to stay alive. Even in the mid to late 90s, budgets were so tight that it was hard to justify needed capital spending. For example, locomotive overhauls were continually deferred beyond what Mechanical thought prudent because the money wasn't there to do all of them. The "business group" model that CR was organized around did extremely well for the auto, coal and intermodal groups, but the Core group, which had 50% of the traffic, was still a bit of a mess. The seasonal variability of traffic was also a problem for Conrail moreso than for other roads (why it was worse on CR, I don't really know - anybody care to hazard a guess?) so that operating by plan year-round was an elusive goal. However, the intermodal growth alone might have been able to keep the boat afloat. Now, if CR had been able to land the Cotton Belt, that would have given them a very lucrative second franchise - Texas Chemical Coast to NJ Chemical Coast traffic. In order to do the alternative history stuff right, we need to consult with Hari Seldon. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply CSSHEGEWISCH Member sinceMarch 2016 From: Burbank IL (near Clearing) 13,505 posts Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Friday, May 6, 2005 9:13 AM I agree with MWH when it comes to ahistorical arguments, an excellent learning exercise but of little use beyond that. I've been taken to task for this point of view in the thread regarding the hypothetical survival of the Milwaukee Road where I equated that thread with the argument that steam was scrapped unnecessarily: nice debates that can't change what already happened. A lot of excellent points have been made in this thread, and they provide a useful basis for considering what happens next regarding merger, consolidation, regional and shortline spinoffs and abandonment. The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Friday, May 6, 2005 9:23 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Mark_W._Hemphill OK, I guess I have to be sucked into this one. I like Don's answers, for what that's worth. My answer: None of them would have survived. The mergers didn't happen because CEO's and boards "felt like it" or "were grasping" or "wanted to get stinkin' rich." The mergers happened because they needed to happen for investor-owned railroading to survive. If you deny something that is essential for survival, what do you get? Death. It is an interesting hypothetical -- "If no mergers occurred after the BN merger of 1970 (presumably because the government changed the law and forbid mergers), what would the rail picture look like today?" We'd be discussing (1) the poor performance of the nationalized railway system, or (2) what it was like to watch trains back when we still had something more than six or seven coal corridors. Realistically, I'm doubtful even BN and UP could have survived without mergers. Without mergers, the weak railroads would have simply keeled over and died, and the traffic flow they created for the strong roads (both originating and terminating) would have evaporated. Without that traffic flow, the revenue stream of the strong roads would have been severely crimped, and they would have had to undergo a harsh retrenchment. UP needed MoPac and WP as much as they needed UP; BN needed Frisco for its cash and credit to pay off the debt it incurred for the PRB expansion. Without those mergers -- and with the subsequent inevitable failure and abandonment of WP, Frisco (yes, it was headed downhill fast), Katy, Soo, SAL, ICG, etc., UP and BN would have cut back to a few key corridors for coal, and darn little else. Feel free to disagree, but since this is an ahistorical thread, I'm not going to lose sleep over it. In general, I disfavor arguments that are counter to the way history worked out, because these arguments imagine that one condition can be changed without the rest of the world reacting or changing, too. I have some academic friends that like to use ahistorical (aka counter-factual) arguments as learning exercises, but I can't see they have any value other than to prove to naive and ernest students that the world isn't a series of random, disconnected events. I agree that my exercise is for naught when viewed in the specific framework in which I have put it. However, though my rail understanding is unquestionably amateurish, I am not sure my question doesn't serve a deeper purpose. In the sister post to this thread, I explore the question of would it be feasible to consolidate rail through bankruptcy rather than merger. My basic thesis is that the problem with the merger paradigm of rail consolidation is that the conglomerated railroad is left with an incredibly large system of lines, which are difficult to manage because (1) the sheer volume of the system (2) the fact that some of the lines don't fit well with the philosophy/cohesion of the conglomerated railroad (3) and some of the lines more properly belong on a regional or short line system. I think, if there were no mergers but surviving railroads could buy lines via bankruptcy liquidation, the industry would nonetheless consolidate. But, because the surviving lines could pick and chose more effectively as to what fits within their system, the conglomerated railroads would be more efficient because (1) they are only getting lines that fit within their particular philosophy/system cohesion and (2) the surviving railroads don't have to pay for parts of a system that doesn't really fit—thus, the purchasing money can, instead, go to infrastructure. It might also be argued that it is cheaper to purchase through liquidation. Thus, my "who would survive" question really means "who would be doing the liquidated purchasing." I don't doubt that there are problems with my theory and there are 333,000 people who know more about this stuff than I and can dismiss it as amateurish. But, I don't think it is simply an ahistorical academic exercise. If another Class 1 goes under or is heading that way, maybe we should consider other ways of saving the routes. Given UP's performance with the SP, it is far from obvious that the merger paradigm is not without flaws. Bankruptcy, by definition, is designed to work with market forces. I am not saying I am right or that my paradigm is the only way of viewing the problem; I just want to know why I am wrong. Gabe Reply jchnhtfd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 1,537 posts Posted by jchnhtfd on Friday, May 6, 2005 11:05 AM This is one of the best for quite a while -- and it pried Mark out of the woodwork, to boot! I think Gabe has an interesting post in the one just previous -- if we redefine the question as relating to who picks up the pieces in a liquidation sale. The examples to look at there are the Rock Island and the Milwaukee. In both cases, a lot of track got pulled up (not enough originating traffic -- check Mark's post) but some other lines got picked up by more healthy companies to provide better routes (best example I can think of off hand is the old RI line across eastern New Mexico). Another post a way's back mentioned the pre-deregulation, pre-Conrail situation, indeed pre-Penn Central situation. I'd have to do some research, but I kind of wonder if either PRR or NYC would have managed alone -- and I'm quite sure that the New Haven would not have. A not wholly unrelated question is: what form should railroads really take? A few major Class I's, and a bunch of regionals feeding them? More localized regionals with a lot of interchanges? I don't see CP in the list -- but both it and CN would have survived, IMHO. As it is, both are a good bit healthier than they would otherwise have been (both have done some really intelligent acquisitions -- I wouldn't call them mergers -- in the last decade or two, in my humble). Jamie Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Friday, May 6, 2005 11:27 AM Jchntfd, Thanks for the kind words about my topic. I really think it is a relevant question. If CSX or UP goes belly up or something along those lines--the current paradigm to solve the problem will be how can we merge our way out of this? I think it is at least worth asking might we be better off letting bankruptcy run its course? Mark is the man, and I am not challenging him about ahistorical debate. But, as a trained historian, my instinct to answer future questions is to look at past scenarios and how could have we done things differently. I think questioning what the rail map would look like if roads like the SP were liquidated rather than merged provide valuable insight into future railroads. Gabe Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Friday, May 6, 2005 11:28 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear Gabe - I'm not going to prognosticate on all of it, but perhaps if you are going to assume the STB regime happened early enough to affect the others, such as B&O, C&O, N&W, Southern, L&N, etc perhaps you also need to re-examine Conrail, not as a whole but as the sum of its parts. If deregulation (Staggers Act or similar) had happened twenty years earlier (Staggers was effective in 1980 so if you take 1960 instead) there might not have been a formation of Conrail by the government at all. The strong might simply have absorbed the weak or at least those routes worth keeping and abandoned the rest. In 1960 it was still NYC, PRR, NY,NH &H, EL (just merged in 1960), LV, CNJ and L&HR operating independently. Also the D&H, B&M, MEC, NYS&W and CN/CV need to be considered as all were involved in the big show that was the northeast. This survival question, particularly where Conrail and the pervasive government legislative scheme created to transform it into a strong new Conrail were not born yet and might never have been if the free market were allowed into the RR business sooner. It certainly makes your question a LOT more interesting. LC No argument here, LC. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, May 8, 2005 8:41 AM I think that the Southern and the N&W would survive. Santa Fe to me had to merger. It was forced by the big UP and the BN roads. PRR would had survive if the money nuts of ran it did not spend the company money on land investments Reply Edit CP5415 Member sinceJuly 2003 From: Whitby, ON 2,594 posts Posted by CP5415 on Sunday, May 8, 2005 8:58 AM I can't comment on most of the US roads, but the SOO was partly owned by the CPR for a long time before being totally bought out a few years ago. Could it have survived, sure it could but with the other mergers going on in the US, a merger with the CPR was the best thing for it. Too bad management couldn't see the potential of WC before they sold off the track. If CPR management was on their toes, they could have been minority shareholders in WC instead of letting it go to CN. Oh well, ce la vie! Gordon Brought to you by the letters C.P.R. as well as D&H! K1a - all the way Reply nanaimo73 Member sinceApril 2005 From: Nanaimo BC Canada 4,117 posts Posted by nanaimo73 on Sunday, May 8, 2005 11:45 AM Would the PRR have survived? If they merged the Wabash (which they owned) in 1960 instead of letting the N&W take it they would have reached Kansas City, Des Moines and Omaha. That would have given them a lot of auto traffic out of Detroit as well. Pelver probably could have run the RR a lot better than Saunders, who should have stayed with the N&W. They would have to follow the lead of the NYC as well, replacing multiple track with CTC, dropping branchlines,passenger service (SORRY!) and getting young enthusiastic people in marketing. Dale Reply MP173 Member sinceMay 2004 From: Valparaiso, In 5,921 posts Posted by MP173 on Sunday, May 8, 2005 11:02 PM Gabe: I think this is an excellent discussion and timely. We can explore which carriers would have made it and come up with some factors that must be addressed for the future. With your question, are you asking if the railroads would have made it "as is", in other words pre Staggers, or post? Pre - Staggers would have been tough. The productivity levels have dramatically increased in the last 25 years. Branch lines are gone. Four man crews are gone. Towers and train order stations are gone. The railroads would have been very dependent on their connections. Today's traffic moves on a fraction of the routes as before. Those routes are pretty good lines today, but many are reaching their maximum. Then what? Chicago - New York traffic is pretty much restricted to CSX or NS right now. Thirty years ago you had NYC, PRR, EL, NW/LV, B&O/JC, and probably several others. How many of those routes still exist? I dont see capital moving into railroads...instead during the last 30 year, it moved away from the industry in the form of liquidation. We now have some great biking/hiking trails and very concentrated mainlines. Where will we be in another 10 years? ed Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, May 9, 2005 4:14 AM Interesting to note that if C&O/B&O had merged with NYC, and PRR with N&W ( WAB, NKP) as was once a possibility in the 60's, we'd have essentially what we have today in the Northeast, without the PC Fiasco or the formation of Conrail as we knew it. EL, LV, RDG etc. might have found other means of survival UP and SP splitting Rock Island might have changed things in the Midwest too. Jimmy Reply Edit bobwilcox Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Crozet, VA 1,049 posts Posted by bobwilcox on Monday, May 9, 2005 8:28 AM I think the basic rationale behind the special laws regarding railroad bankruptcies are like the westward Shasta Daylight at 8:56 AM - long gone. I think Congress should repeal the special treatment for railroads under the bankruptcy laws. During the Great Depression many, many railroads went into bankrupcy because they could not meet their obligations to debtors. It became government policy that the primary purpose of a railroad bankruptcy was to maintain rail service as opposed to a normal bankruptcy where the primary purpose was to protect creditors. Since railroads in the 1930s were public utilities this policy made sense in light of the national interest in having a functioning transportation system. During the last 75 years things have changed. With railroads taking in only 15% on the inter city frieght transportation dollar they are no longer a public utility. In addition, the bankrupcy process could open up a lot of options providing all types of stakeholders access to the railroads assets as the trustee sought to maximize cash for the railroad's creditors. Bob Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, May 9, 2005 9:03 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 Would the PRR have survived? If they merged the Wabash (which they owned) in 1960 instead of letting the N&W take it they would have reached Kansas City, Des Moines and Omaha. That would have given them a lot of auto traffic out of Detroit as well. Pelver probably could have run the RR a lot better than Saunders, who should have stayed with the N&W. They would have to follow the lead of the NYC as well, replacing multiple track with CTC, dropping branchlines,passenger service (SORRY!) and getting young enthusiastic people in marketing. Wabash & PRR would have been a big blow to the NYC and probably would have given PRR a fighting chance (in post Amtrak and post dereg environment). I think that the NYC might have had a decent chance if Amtrak and dereg had occurred in 1960 instead of 10-20 years later. Great routes and markets are a winning combination. Three of the four "arms" of Conrail's "Big X" were ex-NYC (and the fourth was modernized by Conrail to look like the NYC!) -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply 12 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » 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 More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed In the case of the UPRR/CNW you are aware that the UPRR was a large shareholder in the CN & W long before they merged? [:o)][:)][:p] Originally posted by gabe [ Their engines were yellow and green and their wheels went round and round too. In other words, so? [8D][:p][:D][:o)][:o)][:o)] Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Thursday, May 5, 2005 2:52 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Okay. Let me try: (1) Southern RR - survived. The CNO&TP plus growth in the south should have been enough to keep going (2) N&W RR - survived. COAL! plus Detroit (3) Conrail - A close call, but having North Jersey Intermodal franchise + growth in intermodal might have been just enough (4) L&N - survived, maybe in shrunken state - coal (5) Seaboard RR - with the ACL, probably survived. w/o maybe not. (6) C&O - with the B&O dead, w/o the B&O, maybe there is enough coal to balance out competitive disadvantage with N&W (7) ICG - belly up (8) Wisconsin Central - you mean the original SOO - probably belly up, or at least in a much smaller state (9) UP - they will never die, no matter how badly they screw up - great routes and markets (10) Mopac - live as long as they have the UP on the west end (11) Western Pacific - probably dead - bridge routes do poorly in dereg environment (12) Santa Fe - Intemodal franchise Chic - LA should be enough to keep them going (13) Southern Pacific - alive, but much shrunken. UP and ATSF eat them alive (14) Frisco - same as Mopac (15) BN - alive - can you say powder river (16) Chicago North Western - alive unless UP finds a better way from Omaha to Chic - which they just might (17) CN - alive (18) SOO - the old MILW - dead I didn't give this too much thought. Tell me where I'm all wet. I won't be offended!!! Don, I wouldn't be so arrogant to call you all wet. I consider your guess at least as good, probably better than mine. I largely agree with your contentions; but here are the few areas where I disagree: (3) I think Conrail survives, and survives well. (5) I completley agree with your Seaboard contention; but I was including the ACL--I definitely think it could not have survived without the ACL. (6) I don't think the C&O makes it under any circumstance--I think it is part of CSX's problem right now. (7) I think the IC survives--just like it did, it sheds its unprofitable lines and keeps its attractive trunk. In fact, I think the IC is the model for saying the consolidation of the industry was unnecessary. (8) I think the Wisconsin Central can and did survive. (13) I think the SP is the model--aside from the WP--for the line that couldn't make it. You can argue that UP might not be able to pull it out of its mess. I also think the industry would have been better off if the SP was disolved in bankruptcy rather than merger. Remember, when I say not survive, I am not necessarily contending a single mile of track would be pulled up. I just mean it wouldn't survive under its own flag and its lines would be divided/liquidated in bankruptcy. Thanks for responding, Gabe Reply dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Thursday, May 5, 2005 3:09 PM Hmmm...no expert either.....and when MWH comes in and slaps us around.......oh well....I can see several of the road merged with different partners... (1) Southern RR - Survivor but would eventually absorb someone else (Family lines?) (2) N&W RR - survived (3) Conrail - Agree with Don (4) L&N & (5) Seaboard RR - I still see the Family Lines occuring ..then possibly as a part of SRR. (6) C&O - survived barely, B&O a part of Conrail maybe? (7) ICG - maybe with KCS (8) Wisconsin Central - no call (9) UP - alive and kicking (10) Mopac - alive, picking up part of SP TX routes (11) Western Pacific - probably dead (12) Santa Fe & (13) Southern Pacific - I'd have predicted eventual merger..but spin off routes as a part of the deal (UP, MoPac, BN) (14) Frisco - no call (15) BN - alive - can you say powder river (16) Chicago North Western - dead (17) CN - alive (18) SOO - dead ..agree with Don ...a part of CP's gains in the US Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Thursday, May 5, 2005 3:25 PM Dan, (1) I hope Mark does come in and kick me around on this one. I am kind of missing those sorts of beatings--they are very educational. (2) I don't see how Conrail would have died. Wasn't it doing fairly well before the buyout? It certainly has an attractive core. (3) When I say don't make it I mean liquidated in bankruptcy. So that would probably affect the survivors, who would probable be doing the buying. Thanks for responding. Gabe Reply cbq9911a Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Chicagoland 465 posts Posted by cbq9911a on Thursday, May 5, 2005 4:06 PM How about taking it from another angle - considering the components of BN: Burlington - Alive due to Powder River coal. Great Northern - Alive Northern Paciic - Dead Frisco - Don't Kmow SP&S - Dead as a company, but alive as a part of GN. Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Thursday, May 5, 2005 4:24 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by cbq9911a How about taking it from another angle - considering the components of BN: Burlington - Alive due to Powder River coal. Great Northern - Alive Northern Paciic - Dead Frisco - Don't Kmow SP&S - Dead as a company, but alive as a part of GN. I can't argue with that. But it would really affect the way things were shaped on the East end. Gabe Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, May 5, 2005 5:41 PM Gabe - I'm not going to prognosticate on all of it, but perhaps if you are going to assume the STB regime happened early enough to affect the others, such as B&O, C&O, N&W, Southern, L&N, etc perhaps you also need to re-examine Conrail, not as a whole but as the sum of its parts. If deregulation (Staggers Act or similar) had happened twenty years earlier (Staggers was effective in 1980 so if you take 1960 instead) there might not have been a formation of Conrail by the government at all. The strong might simply have absorbed the weak or at least those routes worth keeping and abandoned the rest. In 1960 it was still NYC, PRR, NY,NH &H, EL (just merged in 1960), LV, CNJ and L&HR operating independently. Also the D&H, B&M, MEC, NYS&W and CN/CV need to be considered as all were involved in the big show that was the northeast. This survival question, particularly where Conrail and the pervasive government legislative scheme created to transform it into a strong new Conrail were not born yet and might never have been if the free market were allowed into the RR business sooner. It certainly makes your question a LOT more interesting. LC Reply Edit mudchicken Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Denver / La Junta 10,794 posts Posted by mudchicken on Thursday, May 5, 2005 6:53 PM Solid: SR, N&W,CR, WC, UP, MP,ATSF Shaky: L&N, SBD, B&O,BN (In spite of PRB), ICG,DRGW Dog meat: C&O, WP,SP,CNW,SOO Mudchicken Nothing is worth taking the risk of losing a life over. Come home tonight in the same condition that you left home this morning in. Safety begins with ME.... cinscocom-west Reply espeefoamer Member sinceNovember 2003 From: West Coast 4,122 posts Posted by espeefoamer on Thursday, May 5, 2005 7:01 PM SP by itself probably could not survive. With D&RGW it might have had a chance. Ride Amtrak. Cats Rule, Dogs Drool. Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, May 5, 2005 8:05 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe Dan, (1) I hope Mark does come in and kick me around on this one. I am kind of missing those sorts of beatings--they are very educational. (2) I don't see how Conrail would have died. Wasn't it doing fairly well before the buyout? It certainly has an attractive core. (3) When I say don't make it I mean liquidated in bankruptcy. So that would probably affect the survivors, who would probable be doing the buying. Thanks for responding. Gabe I think you're safe. As I recall, MWH doesn't do "what ifs" -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply mudchicken Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Denver / La Junta 10,794 posts Posted by mudchicken on Thursday, May 5, 2005 8:49 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by espeefoamer SP by itself probably could not survive. With D&RGW it might have had a chance. The combined railroad was hemorraging cash before UP bought it and the SP operating mindset was killing it as well.....doomed to fail. Mudchicken Nothing is worth taking the risk of losing a life over. Come home tonight in the same condition that you left home this morning in. Safety begins with ME.... cinscocom-west Reply LarrySmith Member sinceJune 2001 From: US 17 posts Posted by LarrySmith on Thursday, May 5, 2005 11:55 PM As I am trying to model the SP and am interested in the railroad, where can I find out what happened to it? Also, the analysis and discussion of business practices and operations for all these mergered and failed RR's might provide great case studies for business management and could help surviving roads operate more profitably. Reply passengerfan Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Central Valley California 2,841 posts Posted by passengerfan on Friday, May 6, 2005 12:45 AM Gabe I think on youe BN components you were wrong on NP why take a look at MRL. How many short lines do you know buying new power Reply nanaimo73 Member sinceApril 2005 From: Nanaimo BC Canada 4,117 posts Posted by nanaimo73 on Friday, May 6, 2005 1:30 AM Good forum Gabe. I think the NP would have built the proposed Tongue River Railroad from Miles City to the mines around Decker and Sheridan and would have been fine. The Santa Fe would have taken over the ST.L.S.F. or merged with the MP to get into St.Louis, and Memphis. Can we let Katy come in and play ? She had the best route from KC to Texas. Dale Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, May 6, 2005 7:49 AM Conrail may have been a more "iffy" proposition than many people would guess. Yes, the turnaround from the depths of PC was drastic and real, but CR, like many other RRs, was still "eating it's foot" to stay alive. Even in the mid to late 90s, budgets were so tight that it was hard to justify needed capital spending. For example, locomotive overhauls were continually deferred beyond what Mechanical thought prudent because the money wasn't there to do all of them. The "business group" model that CR was organized around did extremely well for the auto, coal and intermodal groups, but the Core group, which had 50% of the traffic, was still a bit of a mess. The seasonal variability of traffic was also a problem for Conrail moreso than for other roads (why it was worse on CR, I don't really know - anybody care to hazard a guess?) so that operating by plan year-round was an elusive goal. However, the intermodal growth alone might have been able to keep the boat afloat. Now, if CR had been able to land the Cotton Belt, that would have given them a very lucrative second franchise - Texas Chemical Coast to NJ Chemical Coast traffic. In order to do the alternative history stuff right, we need to consult with Hari Seldon. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply CSSHEGEWISCH Member sinceMarch 2016 From: Burbank IL (near Clearing) 13,505 posts Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Friday, May 6, 2005 9:13 AM I agree with MWH when it comes to ahistorical arguments, an excellent learning exercise but of little use beyond that. I've been taken to task for this point of view in the thread regarding the hypothetical survival of the Milwaukee Road where I equated that thread with the argument that steam was scrapped unnecessarily: nice debates that can't change what already happened. A lot of excellent points have been made in this thread, and they provide a useful basis for considering what happens next regarding merger, consolidation, regional and shortline spinoffs and abandonment. The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Friday, May 6, 2005 9:23 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Mark_W._Hemphill OK, I guess I have to be sucked into this one. I like Don's answers, for what that's worth. My answer: None of them would have survived. The mergers didn't happen because CEO's and boards "felt like it" or "were grasping" or "wanted to get stinkin' rich." The mergers happened because they needed to happen for investor-owned railroading to survive. If you deny something that is essential for survival, what do you get? Death. It is an interesting hypothetical -- "If no mergers occurred after the BN merger of 1970 (presumably because the government changed the law and forbid mergers), what would the rail picture look like today?" We'd be discussing (1) the poor performance of the nationalized railway system, or (2) what it was like to watch trains back when we still had something more than six or seven coal corridors. Realistically, I'm doubtful even BN and UP could have survived without mergers. Without mergers, the weak railroads would have simply keeled over and died, and the traffic flow they created for the strong roads (both originating and terminating) would have evaporated. Without that traffic flow, the revenue stream of the strong roads would have been severely crimped, and they would have had to undergo a harsh retrenchment. UP needed MoPac and WP as much as they needed UP; BN needed Frisco for its cash and credit to pay off the debt it incurred for the PRB expansion. Without those mergers -- and with the subsequent inevitable failure and abandonment of WP, Frisco (yes, it was headed downhill fast), Katy, Soo, SAL, ICG, etc., UP and BN would have cut back to a few key corridors for coal, and darn little else. Feel free to disagree, but since this is an ahistorical thread, I'm not going to lose sleep over it. In general, I disfavor arguments that are counter to the way history worked out, because these arguments imagine that one condition can be changed without the rest of the world reacting or changing, too. I have some academic friends that like to use ahistorical (aka counter-factual) arguments as learning exercises, but I can't see they have any value other than to prove to naive and ernest students that the world isn't a series of random, disconnected events. I agree that my exercise is for naught when viewed in the specific framework in which I have put it. However, though my rail understanding is unquestionably amateurish, I am not sure my question doesn't serve a deeper purpose. In the sister post to this thread, I explore the question of would it be feasible to consolidate rail through bankruptcy rather than merger. My basic thesis is that the problem with the merger paradigm of rail consolidation is that the conglomerated railroad is left with an incredibly large system of lines, which are difficult to manage because (1) the sheer volume of the system (2) the fact that some of the lines don't fit well with the philosophy/cohesion of the conglomerated railroad (3) and some of the lines more properly belong on a regional or short line system. I think, if there were no mergers but surviving railroads could buy lines via bankruptcy liquidation, the industry would nonetheless consolidate. But, because the surviving lines could pick and chose more effectively as to what fits within their system, the conglomerated railroads would be more efficient because (1) they are only getting lines that fit within their particular philosophy/system cohesion and (2) the surviving railroads don't have to pay for parts of a system that doesn't really fit—thus, the purchasing money can, instead, go to infrastructure. It might also be argued that it is cheaper to purchase through liquidation. Thus, my "who would survive" question really means "who would be doing the liquidated purchasing." I don't doubt that there are problems with my theory and there are 333,000 people who know more about this stuff than I and can dismiss it as amateurish. But, I don't think it is simply an ahistorical academic exercise. If another Class 1 goes under or is heading that way, maybe we should consider other ways of saving the routes. Given UP's performance with the SP, it is far from obvious that the merger paradigm is not without flaws. Bankruptcy, by definition, is designed to work with market forces. I am not saying I am right or that my paradigm is the only way of viewing the problem; I just want to know why I am wrong. Gabe Reply jchnhtfd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 1,537 posts Posted by jchnhtfd on Friday, May 6, 2005 11:05 AM This is one of the best for quite a while -- and it pried Mark out of the woodwork, to boot! I think Gabe has an interesting post in the one just previous -- if we redefine the question as relating to who picks up the pieces in a liquidation sale. The examples to look at there are the Rock Island and the Milwaukee. In both cases, a lot of track got pulled up (not enough originating traffic -- check Mark's post) but some other lines got picked up by more healthy companies to provide better routes (best example I can think of off hand is the old RI line across eastern New Mexico). Another post a way's back mentioned the pre-deregulation, pre-Conrail situation, indeed pre-Penn Central situation. I'd have to do some research, but I kind of wonder if either PRR or NYC would have managed alone -- and I'm quite sure that the New Haven would not have. A not wholly unrelated question is: what form should railroads really take? A few major Class I's, and a bunch of regionals feeding them? More localized regionals with a lot of interchanges? I don't see CP in the list -- but both it and CN would have survived, IMHO. As it is, both are a good bit healthier than they would otherwise have been (both have done some really intelligent acquisitions -- I wouldn't call them mergers -- in the last decade or two, in my humble). Jamie Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Friday, May 6, 2005 11:27 AM Jchntfd, Thanks for the kind words about my topic. I really think it is a relevant question. If CSX or UP goes belly up or something along those lines--the current paradigm to solve the problem will be how can we merge our way out of this? I think it is at least worth asking might we be better off letting bankruptcy run its course? Mark is the man, and I am not challenging him about ahistorical debate. But, as a trained historian, my instinct to answer future questions is to look at past scenarios and how could have we done things differently. I think questioning what the rail map would look like if roads like the SP were liquidated rather than merged provide valuable insight into future railroads. Gabe Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Friday, May 6, 2005 11:28 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear Gabe - I'm not going to prognosticate on all of it, but perhaps if you are going to assume the STB regime happened early enough to affect the others, such as B&O, C&O, N&W, Southern, L&N, etc perhaps you also need to re-examine Conrail, not as a whole but as the sum of its parts. If deregulation (Staggers Act or similar) had happened twenty years earlier (Staggers was effective in 1980 so if you take 1960 instead) there might not have been a formation of Conrail by the government at all. The strong might simply have absorbed the weak or at least those routes worth keeping and abandoned the rest. In 1960 it was still NYC, PRR, NY,NH &H, EL (just merged in 1960), LV, CNJ and L&HR operating independently. Also the D&H, B&M, MEC, NYS&W and CN/CV need to be considered as all were involved in the big show that was the northeast. This survival question, particularly where Conrail and the pervasive government legislative scheme created to transform it into a strong new Conrail were not born yet and might never have been if the free market were allowed into the RR business sooner. It certainly makes your question a LOT more interesting. LC No argument here, LC. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, May 8, 2005 8:41 AM I think that the Southern and the N&W would survive. Santa Fe to me had to merger. It was forced by the big UP and the BN roads. PRR would had survive if the money nuts of ran it did not spend the company money on land investments Reply Edit CP5415 Member sinceJuly 2003 From: Whitby, ON 2,594 posts Posted by CP5415 on Sunday, May 8, 2005 8:58 AM I can't comment on most of the US roads, but the SOO was partly owned by the CPR for a long time before being totally bought out a few years ago. Could it have survived, sure it could but with the other mergers going on in the US, a merger with the CPR was the best thing for it. Too bad management couldn't see the potential of WC before they sold off the track. If CPR management was on their toes, they could have been minority shareholders in WC instead of letting it go to CN. Oh well, ce la vie! Gordon Brought to you by the letters C.P.R. as well as D&H! K1a - all the way Reply nanaimo73 Member sinceApril 2005 From: Nanaimo BC Canada 4,117 posts Posted by nanaimo73 on Sunday, May 8, 2005 11:45 AM Would the PRR have survived? If they merged the Wabash (which they owned) in 1960 instead of letting the N&W take it they would have reached Kansas City, Des Moines and Omaha. That would have given them a lot of auto traffic out of Detroit as well. Pelver probably could have run the RR a lot better than Saunders, who should have stayed with the N&W. They would have to follow the lead of the NYC as well, replacing multiple track with CTC, dropping branchlines,passenger service (SORRY!) and getting young enthusiastic people in marketing. Dale Reply MP173 Member sinceMay 2004 From: Valparaiso, In 5,921 posts Posted by MP173 on Sunday, May 8, 2005 11:02 PM Gabe: I think this is an excellent discussion and timely. We can explore which carriers would have made it and come up with some factors that must be addressed for the future. With your question, are you asking if the railroads would have made it "as is", in other words pre Staggers, or post? Pre - Staggers would have been tough. The productivity levels have dramatically increased in the last 25 years. Branch lines are gone. Four man crews are gone. Towers and train order stations are gone. The railroads would have been very dependent on their connections. Today's traffic moves on a fraction of the routes as before. Those routes are pretty good lines today, but many are reaching their maximum. Then what? Chicago - New York traffic is pretty much restricted to CSX or NS right now. Thirty years ago you had NYC, PRR, EL, NW/LV, B&O/JC, and probably several others. How many of those routes still exist? I dont see capital moving into railroads...instead during the last 30 year, it moved away from the industry in the form of liquidation. We now have some great biking/hiking trails and very concentrated mainlines. Where will we be in another 10 years? ed Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, May 9, 2005 4:14 AM Interesting to note that if C&O/B&O had merged with NYC, and PRR with N&W ( WAB, NKP) as was once a possibility in the 60's, we'd have essentially what we have today in the Northeast, without the PC Fiasco or the formation of Conrail as we knew it. EL, LV, RDG etc. might have found other means of survival UP and SP splitting Rock Island might have changed things in the Midwest too. Jimmy Reply Edit bobwilcox Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Crozet, VA 1,049 posts Posted by bobwilcox on Monday, May 9, 2005 8:28 AM I think the basic rationale behind the special laws regarding railroad bankruptcies are like the westward Shasta Daylight at 8:56 AM - long gone. I think Congress should repeal the special treatment for railroads under the bankruptcy laws. During the Great Depression many, many railroads went into bankrupcy because they could not meet their obligations to debtors. It became government policy that the primary purpose of a railroad bankruptcy was to maintain rail service as opposed to a normal bankruptcy where the primary purpose was to protect creditors. Since railroads in the 1930s were public utilities this policy made sense in light of the national interest in having a functioning transportation system. During the last 75 years things have changed. With railroads taking in only 15% on the inter city frieght transportation dollar they are no longer a public utility. In addition, the bankrupcy process could open up a lot of options providing all types of stakeholders access to the railroads assets as the trustee sought to maximize cash for the railroad's creditors. Bob Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, May 9, 2005 9:03 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 Would the PRR have survived? If they merged the Wabash (which they owned) in 1960 instead of letting the N&W take it they would have reached Kansas City, Des Moines and Omaha. That would have given them a lot of auto traffic out of Detroit as well. Pelver probably could have run the RR a lot better than Saunders, who should have stayed with the N&W. They would have to follow the lead of the NYC as well, replacing multiple track with CTC, dropping branchlines,passenger service (SORRY!) and getting young enthusiastic people in marketing. Wabash & PRR would have been a big blow to the NYC and probably would have given PRR a fighting chance (in post Amtrak and post dereg environment). I think that the NYC might have had a decent chance if Amtrak and dereg had occurred in 1960 instead of 10-20 years later. Great routes and markets are a winning combination. Three of the four "arms" of Conrail's "Big X" were ex-NYC (and the fourth was modernized by Conrail to look like the NYC!) -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply 12 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » 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 More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by gabe [
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Okay. Let me try: (1) Southern RR - survived. The CNO&TP plus growth in the south should have been enough to keep going (2) N&W RR - survived. COAL! plus Detroit (3) Conrail - A close call, but having North Jersey Intermodal franchise + growth in intermodal might have been just enough (4) L&N - survived, maybe in shrunken state - coal (5) Seaboard RR - with the ACL, probably survived. w/o maybe not. (6) C&O - with the B&O dead, w/o the B&O, maybe there is enough coal to balance out competitive disadvantage with N&W (7) ICG - belly up (8) Wisconsin Central - you mean the original SOO - probably belly up, or at least in a much smaller state (9) UP - they will never die, no matter how badly they screw up - great routes and markets (10) Mopac - live as long as they have the UP on the west end (11) Western Pacific - probably dead - bridge routes do poorly in dereg environment (12) Santa Fe - Intemodal franchise Chic - LA should be enough to keep them going (13) Southern Pacific - alive, but much shrunken. UP and ATSF eat them alive (14) Frisco - same as Mopac (15) BN - alive - can you say powder river (16) Chicago North Western - alive unless UP finds a better way from Omaha to Chic - which they just might (17) CN - alive (18) SOO - the old MILW - dead I didn't give this too much thought. Tell me where I'm all wet. I won't be offended!!!
QUOTE: Originally posted by cbq9911a How about taking it from another angle - considering the components of BN: Burlington - Alive due to Powder River coal. Great Northern - Alive Northern Paciic - Dead Frisco - Don't Kmow SP&S - Dead as a company, but alive as a part of GN.
QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe Dan, (1) I hope Mark does come in and kick me around on this one. I am kind of missing those sorts of beatings--they are very educational. (2) I don't see how Conrail would have died. Wasn't it doing fairly well before the buyout? It certainly has an attractive core. (3) When I say don't make it I mean liquidated in bankruptcy. So that would probably affect the survivors, who would probable be doing the buying. Thanks for responding. Gabe
QUOTE: Originally posted by espeefoamer SP by itself probably could not survive. With D&RGW it might have had a chance.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Mark_W._Hemphill OK, I guess I have to be sucked into this one. I like Don's answers, for what that's worth. My answer: None of them would have survived. The mergers didn't happen because CEO's and boards "felt like it" or "were grasping" or "wanted to get stinkin' rich." The mergers happened because they needed to happen for investor-owned railroading to survive. If you deny something that is essential for survival, what do you get? Death. It is an interesting hypothetical -- "If no mergers occurred after the BN merger of 1970 (presumably because the government changed the law and forbid mergers), what would the rail picture look like today?" We'd be discussing (1) the poor performance of the nationalized railway system, or (2) what it was like to watch trains back when we still had something more than six or seven coal corridors. Realistically, I'm doubtful even BN and UP could have survived without mergers. Without mergers, the weak railroads would have simply keeled over and died, and the traffic flow they created for the strong roads (both originating and terminating) would have evaporated. Without that traffic flow, the revenue stream of the strong roads would have been severely crimped, and they would have had to undergo a harsh retrenchment. UP needed MoPac and WP as much as they needed UP; BN needed Frisco for its cash and credit to pay off the debt it incurred for the PRB expansion. Without those mergers -- and with the subsequent inevitable failure and abandonment of WP, Frisco (yes, it was headed downhill fast), Katy, Soo, SAL, ICG, etc., UP and BN would have cut back to a few key corridors for coal, and darn little else. Feel free to disagree, but since this is an ahistorical thread, I'm not going to lose sleep over it. In general, I disfavor arguments that are counter to the way history worked out, because these arguments imagine that one condition can be changed without the rest of the world reacting or changing, too. I have some academic friends that like to use ahistorical (aka counter-factual) arguments as learning exercises, but I can't see they have any value other than to prove to naive and ernest students that the world isn't a series of random, disconnected events.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear Gabe - I'm not going to prognosticate on all of it, but perhaps if you are going to assume the STB regime happened early enough to affect the others, such as B&O, C&O, N&W, Southern, L&N, etc perhaps you also need to re-examine Conrail, not as a whole but as the sum of its parts. If deregulation (Staggers Act or similar) had happened twenty years earlier (Staggers was effective in 1980 so if you take 1960 instead) there might not have been a formation of Conrail by the government at all. The strong might simply have absorbed the weak or at least those routes worth keeping and abandoned the rest. In 1960 it was still NYC, PRR, NY,NH &H, EL (just merged in 1960), LV, CNJ and L&HR operating independently. Also the D&H, B&M, MEC, NYS&W and CN/CV need to be considered as all were involved in the big show that was the northeast. This survival question, particularly where Conrail and the pervasive government legislative scheme created to transform it into a strong new Conrail were not born yet and might never have been if the free market were allowed into the RR business sooner. It certainly makes your question a LOT more interesting. LC
Brought to you by the letters C.P.R. as well as D&H!
K1a - all the way
QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 Would the PRR have survived? If they merged the Wabash (which they owned) in 1960 instead of letting the N&W take it they would have reached Kansas City, Des Moines and Omaha. That would have given them a lot of auto traffic out of Detroit as well. Pelver probably could have run the RR a lot better than Saunders, who should have stayed with the N&W. They would have to follow the lead of the NYC as well, replacing multiple track with CTC, dropping branchlines,passenger service (SORRY!) and getting young enthusiastic people in marketing.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.