Re: (erielack) EL vs. PC

["Paul Brezicki" <doctorpb_@_bellsouth.net>]

According to Trains, it has lots of good info. Presumably this is mentioned in the book, but there was a group in the early 60's who favored combining each of the Northeast's two biggest (along with the also-rans like EL) with a profitable Pocahontas region coal carrier, ie: NYC with C&O/B&O, PRR with N&W. This made good sense and would have created a reasonably balanced two-system Northeast, each with a firm footing in coal traffic to ensure long-term viability. However NYC and PRR were hell-bent on merger, but after 35 years, bankruptcy and Conrail, this is more or less how things ended up anyway. 

Paul B
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Tim Stuy 
  To: Paul Brezicki 
  Cc: EL Mailing List ; Fred Stratton 
  Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 9:07 PM
  Subject: Re: (erielack) EL vs. PC


  While not as detailed a history of the PC, I think anyone interested in how PC came about and we ended up at today's eastern system, you should read Rush Loving's new book, "The Men Who Loved Trains".

  Tim


  On 10/8/06, Paul Brezicki <doctorpb_@_bellsouth.net> wrote:
    It's been a long time since I read "The Wreck of the PC", but I seem to recall a claim that PC chairman Stu Saunders (ex-PRR, of course) believed that jumbo jets would eventually take all the RR's long distance traffic, including coal ! I don't know whether or not this was true, but high-level management brilliance and commitment was in short supply at that outfit. Those interested in the PC fall will want to look at "Penn Central RR" by Peter Lynch. This book is much more focused on the operational side and I recommend it. 

    Gary is correct, PC's collapse weakened the entire industry, including RR's like EL that were primarily competitors, since so much traffic was interline. The revenue shortfalls tended to outweigh the benefits of traffic diversion. 

    Paul B

    "Wreck of the Penn Central" is a very good read overall but it does go  heavy
    on the details. Sparse mentions of EL, mostly regarding possible  pre-merger
    line ups, i.e., DL&W-NKP, etc. 

    Rick

    - --- Fred  Stratton <erief7_@_msn.com> wrote:
    > Keep in mind when talking about  the EL and PC, it took the EL 16
    > years to fall while it took the PC  only 872 days. Much of the EL's 
    > financial woes were not the  mismanagement of money, although at
    > times some practices were  questionable. However the fall of the PC
    > in part involved not puting  finances back into the physical plant. 
    > This is verified in the book "  wreck of the Penn Central." They
    > were more interested in other  ventures and let the RR go to H _ _ _
    > in a handbasket.

    Once PC  declared bankruptcy, they were 'protected'.  They didn't have 
    to pay  their past bills from other railroads until the courts sorted
    things  out.  Going forward, they could delay paying demurrage, etc,
    yet  demand the other lines pay them on time.  This sucked most of the
    cash  out of the other lines in the northeast, one of the major
    reasons for the  EL, Reading, CNJ, LV, and L&H all going under.

    Gary R.  Kazin
    DL&W Milepost R35.7
    Rockaway, New  Jersey




            The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
            Sponsored by the ELH&TS
            http://www.elhts.org




	The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
	Sponsored by the ELH&TS
	http://www.elhts.org

------------------------------

End of EL Mail List Digest V3 #2163
***********************************