I've just finished the book.
It's not quite as fun to read as Loving's book, but it is very interesting full of lots of good quotes info on the various RR leaders.
The unifying thread is that the legacy of the CB&Q and GN's rivalry with the UP shaped and continues to shape railroading in North America.
Most interesting part:
Ex-Air Force guy Chain's comments contrasting the RR with the Air Force. He was shocked at how backward the RR culture was and how poorly the RR operated.
Things I didn't know that I found facinating:
Krebs came from the SP. Rose used to work for Triple Crown.
NP was a land grant RR and GN was not. NP was always the weak sister to GN.
The west end of the ATSF was the Frisco controlled A&P RR at one time.
Grinstein though BNSF should have held the UP-SP deal hostage for some actual routes rather than just trackage rights, which Krebs thought were the best they'd get.
RRs in the early 20th century had ORs in the mid 60s. (Did anyone notice that CN's is now down to 57!)
The BN should have picked up the MP instead of the Frisco - probably sentimentality of Lou Menk.
The RRs were severly overbuilt by the late 19th century and that glut of overcapacity took nearly a century to resolve.
The ICC was a completely bizzare organization.
Some opinions:
Grinstein was probably the best "outside" manager the BN had. The others, Bressler, Drexel, etc. seemed more interests in the vast tracts of land than the RR.
BN made a serious error initially pricing Powder River coal w/o consideration of capital investment it would take once the coal started flowing. The RR spent a lot of time fighting law suits and schmoozing utilities to get decent rates that would support required investment. Did the marketing guys schmooze the CEO better than the Ops guys?
What was lacking:
Different CEOs had differing points of view of how and what the the RR should do, but I would have liked to know more about how the background of these guys may have shaped their view. All we learn about the "outsiders" at BN is that there were from a different industry that took a different view.
What's next?
There's gonna be another round of mergers - but when? The next round is going to have to be a pair of 3-ways since the STB is requiring any applicant to address the likely reaction to any merger application. 3-ways would be much harder to get agreement on. Nobody wants to be the odd may out. Also, I think RRs are still busy with in-house issues, except maybe CN. BNSF needs to finish the double track transcon. UP is still just getting a grip on their capacity issues. CSX still needs to get it's financial house in order so that it's not "Miss Congeniality" in the next round of mergers. And, the industry as a whole needs to figure out how to find enough capital funding to keep up with potential growth. So, maybe the next round is still several years away.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Oltmannd quoted:
"It's not quite as fun to read as Loving's book, but it is very interesting full of lots of good quotes info on the various RR leaders.
The unifying thread is that the legacy of the CB&Q and GN's rivalry with the UP shaped and continues to shape railroading in North America."
History is always interesting, and when reported accurately, by knowledgable individuals, is worth the read. Each of us has our on take on how things, 'would have, 'should have,' or 'could have' affected the historical time line; speculation is an excercise that most of us find facinating. One man's vocation can be another's avocation. This kind of thread is always appreciated.
Too many RR books are just a chronology of historical facts, e.g. They built from A to B, then B to C, then purchased RR XYZ, without any context of who or why or what was driving it. Or they are just a catalog of assets over a period of time. These are fine for what they are, but the more interesting ones try to get into the heads of the people making things happen. The Ambrose book "Nothing Like it in the World" is a good example of this. Also, there is a two volume book on the history of the Reading that I enjoyed.
What I'd like to read about is what happened at the PRR from the late 19th Century, when they were a very progressive, well run road, to the 1960s, when their leaders were clearly living in fantasy land. Too much inbreeding? Only read their own press releases? Lack of any serious competition? What? Loving's book makes it sound like they viewed thier position in the world as an entitlement. I certainly couldn't have been that way in 1900. I wonder if anybody really knows. All the principals are long dead.
I guess each to his own, but I am in Don's camp on what I like to see in railroad history. My thing is getting more insight on the people in railroading who made the history of the last 50 years or so. While I have not seen Kaufman's book and am in no position to comment on his work, work such as Loving's book and Mark Hemphill's article on the SP in the 1970's are my cup of tea.
I've recently have had the good fortune to meet and have conversations with a few of the people that held important positions during "my" era. Fascinating!
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
oltmannd wrote: NP was a land grant RR and GN was not. NP was always the weak sister to GN.
jeaton wrote: I guess each to his own, but I am in Don's camp on what I like to see in railroad history. My thing is getting more insight on the people in railroading who made the history of the last 50 years or so. While I have not seen Kaufman's book and am in no position to comment on his work, work such as Loving's book and Mark Hemphill's article on the SP in the 1970's are my cup of tea. I've recently have had the good fortune to meet and have conversations with a few of the people that held important positions during "my" era. Fascinating!
What was really cool for me, was getting a chance to sit next to David Goode at dinner once and hear him tell his version of the Conrail story - and then compare it to what I knew, or thought I knew, and then later with Loving's book.
MP173 wrote:Don:Care to share those stories?ed
That would really be informative and Interesting..First Person is always cool!
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
MichaelSol wrote: oltmannd wrote: NP was a land grant RR and GN was not. NP was always the weak sister to GN. Land grants:Illinois Central .. 2.6 million acresGreat Northern (SP&P, then the Manitoba) .. 5.7 million acresUnion Pacific .. 11 million acres (original grant)Northern Pacific .. 40 million acresNever understood why GN is always considered a non-land grant road. Kauffman perpetuates that view which, to me, demonstrates a lack of original research.
Kauffman has always had a problem with factual presentation. He's more the propogandist and less the biographer.
One of his significant advantages was that Hill was able to buy the SP&P for $6.8 mllion, and sell 3.3 million acres for $13 million. In essence, he got the SP&P for free, courtesy of government land grants. That was a good head start for any Empire Builder.
Or to put it another way, JJ was paid a net of $6.2 million by the government to take responsibility for the railroad.
Nice work if you can get it!
I guess anyone could have been an Empire Builder under those terms.
oltmannd wrote: What I'd like to read about is what happened at the PRR from the late 19th Century, when they were a very progressive, well run road, to the 1960s, when their leaders were clearly living in fantasy land. Too much inbreeding? Only read their own press releases? Lack of any serious competition? What? Loving's book makes it sound like they viewed their position in the world as an entitlement. I certainly couldn't have been that way in 1900. I wonder if anybody really knows. All the principals are long dead.
What I'd like to read about is what happened at the PRR from the late 19th Century, when they were a very progressive, well run road, to the 1960s, when their leaders were clearly living in fantasy land. Too much inbreeding? Only read their own press releases? Lack of any serious competition? What? Loving's book makes it sound like they viewed their position in the world as an entitlement. I certainly couldn't have been that way in 1900. I wonder if anybody really knows. All the principals are long dead.
Would it have been Symes that came up with the bright idea of giving the Wabash to the N&W, and merging with the NYC ?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.