[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
RE: (erielack) A couple of items
Dear Michael,
Shortly after Truesdale became president of the DL&W, he and several other
railroad presidents (including the Pennsy) started investigating a joint
line to a union station in downtown Manhattan. That joint effort fell
through and the PRR built its own line into Manhattan and the rest, of
course, is history. However, if the joint line had been built, with the
DL&W terminating in New York City instead of Hoboken, I can see how a
DL&W-NKP merger could have been formidable. I'm not sure that I agree that
the DL&W was averse to expanding beyond Buffalo, I just think that the
reality of the situation was such that it rendered the issue moot from the
DL&W's point of view. In any case, at some point the pendulum may swing
such that the market might one again support more NY-Chicago rail lines,
but it's obvious that the weakest ones have been eliminated in the mean
time. As such, it's interesting to speculate on whether DL&W-NKP might
have delayed disaster--it certainly would have probably prevented a merger
with the Erie--and whether the DL&W mainline west of Binghamton would be
still intact instead of being mostly gone as it is now. It's a question
we'll never know the answer to.
Chuck
"Michael Connor"
<mjconnor_rr_@_hotmail.
com> To: Edward.Montgomery_@_fcps.edu
Sent by: erielack_@_lists.railfan.net
erielack-owner_@_lists. cc:
railfan.net Subject:
RE: (erielack) A couple of items
03/08/2005 10:11 AM
Please respond to
"Michael Connor"
The NYC controlled the NKP from c. 1885. It was ordered to divest the NKP
by the Federal Government under the Clayton Act (IIRC) c. 1916. President
A. H. Smith of the NYC (no relation to the NY Governor and Presidential
Candidate of the same name) sought out the Van Sweringens as purchasers of
the NKP on the reasonable theory that they were the less of several evils.
Disposition to the DL&W would have been a strategic blunder for the NYC
creating, as it would, a new NY-Chgo competitor. I don't believe the DL&W
management had a lot of choice in this.
The Lake Erie & Western, also an NYC-contriolled property, was also
sold to the Vans for much the same reason.
In the lost opportunity column it might be interesting to ask why
the
Erie did not actively pursue the other ultimate component of the pre-W&LE
NKP, the Toledo, St. Louis & Western ("Clover Leaf").
The House of Morgan and other banking interests had great influence
on the management of the various railroads and worked to reduce empire
building and competition. I think that the folks that controlled the purse
strings of the DL&W and the Erie were reluct6ant for either road to expand
out of its geographic limits. I believe this made each road much weaker by
mid-century than they needed to be but by then the damage was done.
M J Connor
>From: "Montgomery, Edward T" <Edward.Montgomery_@_fcps.edu>
>Reply-To: "Montgomery, Edward T" <Edward.Montgomery_@_fcps.edu>
>To: <erielack_@_lists.railfan.net>
>Subject: (erielack) A couple of items
>Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 16:55:12 -0500
>
>It's taken me some time to collect my thoughts on this but in the recent
>CLASSIC TRAINS there story in CUT brought up some interesting items I
>had never thought of. I had always thought Lackawanna management
>dropped the ball when it came to acquiring the NKP early in the 20th
>Century. Well the article points out that New York Central had an
>interest in the NKP back then as well as owning Lackawanna stock. If
>the Van Sweragin's didn't control the NKP, NYC would have probably
>either shut it down or transferred some of their mainline to NKP's ROW.
>I'm not sure who had the better grades. NYC owning shares of NKP and
>DL&W probably prohibited any thought of DL&W acquiring the NKP.
>Lackawanna was effectively locked into the New York-Buffalo lines with
>little or no hope of expanding west. Possibly they could have
>considered an end-to-end merger with the Wabash at Buffalo via Canada
>but NYC would have probably opposed that as well. I wonder what
>Lackawanna Management thought of all that back then. When the
>depression hit followed by the loss of the anthracite business
>Lackawanna was in a position where NYC didn't need it's interest and NKP
>or any other Midwest carrier probably didn't want DL&W as a partner.
>
>
>
>And then there is the MODEL RAILROADER article on the DL&W lightweight
>coaches. Very interesting. Question: I never rode in these cars. I
>have heard people complain about them. Something about not being able
>to effectively see out the windows. Where the seats too low? These
>coaches are really unique. Other lightweights have small windows at the
>car ends. The Lackawanna coaches did not. It looks like a kind of
>custom design.
>
>
>
>Ed Montgomery
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------