[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Fw: (erielack) Special Day? What if?



- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: Paul Brezicki 
To: EL Mailing List 
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:08 AM
Subject: Re: (erielack) Special Day? What if?


The "modern merger" era began in 1955 with the L&N-NC&StL combination, which was a complementary arrangement. EL was the first modern merger of parallel competing lines. Most combinations over the ensuing 12 years were of the latter type, although the PC collapse put a damper on merger activity for a while. I agree that the EL merger made good sense, permitting the achievement of economies by eliminating duplicate facilities and functions in the face of a declining traffic base.

Paul B

Back then end-to-end mergers were not in vogue, which is one reason I thought the NKP / DL&W was logical and forward thinking. That's the benefit of looking back from the future.
Many mergers of that era were parallel.  I would guess that without DL&W, the Erie would have been acting out of a more desparate position. It needed to come up with some economies, so it would have been cutting services and expenses where it could. Erie wanted DL&W because E-L could cut some costs and services that were duplicative.  That would mean a parallel railroad.  
It may have courted Lehigh Valley (Hudson River terminals, Buffalo facilities, main lines cross west of Binghamton).  In the late 1950s when Erie-Lackawanna was cooked up, the Erie wasn't going to be a minor player to any partner, so that leaves joining the Penn or NYC out.  The CNJ had a terminal, local freight and lots of debt, but not much else the Erie would want.
     No question that merging the Lackwanna and the Erie was a logical move.               ....Mike  


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

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