[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Fw: (erielack) Special Day? What if?
- Subject: Fw: (erielack) Special Day? What if?
- From: "Paul Brezicki" <doctorpb_@_bellsouth.net>
- Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 05:59:50 -0400
- ----- 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
------------------------------