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

RE: (erielack) A controversial topic? :)

 In some part, I write just to get the topic line spelled correctly . . . 8^)

 Njricky2_@_aol.com wrote, though not necessarily in this order:

> Erie had lousy management from Day 1. The "corporate ones" who controlled  
> Erie were into making money, not into running a railroad. It's surprising that  
> Erie did as well as it did and overall, it did very well. Erie turned out to 
> be  "a survivor". Erie competed with PRR and NYC and did so  effectively.

That's almost right.  I believe the management, while it had its problems, was actually about as
competent as any corporation was in those days.  There is a lot of the outlines of corporate
structure in use today that was invented by the ERIE.  I believe that what was bad for the ERIE from
the outset, or almost from the outset, was the financiers who correctly viewed this very large
corporation as something that could be manipulated, and in the process of those manipulations,
because it was so large (for its day) the amount of money to be extracted from it was enormous.  The
actual management was manipulated just as much as the more innocent of the stockholders.  The end
result was that the railroad was saddled with huge amounts of debt that had been taken on, while
ostensibly for "improvements" to the railroad, in fact for improvements to the financier's pockets.
Even bankruptcy didn't seem to change that.  While some (all?) of those previous debts might have
been washed away, the railroad as it existed on the first day of operation under a new financial
regime was a battered, in-need-of-improvement line, so they were always starting out in the hole.
Look what happened when the Van's took over and started spending money.

> I often wonder whether or not the EL merger  was 
> a good thing. I think that they had no choice in the end 
> because things in  the industry were happening quickly.

I think there's some merit to that idea.  When merger became a concept that could be considered, the
first go-round included the D&H, along with the ERIE and DL&W.  From what I remember my dad and
granddad saying at the time (I was ~10 years old), the D&H realized they didn't want anything to do
with these two sick puppies, since they were making money . . .then.  IMHO, what would have been
much better for the ERIE (sorry, DL&W fans) would have been a ERIE/D&H merger, especially if they
could have brought the B&M into the mix, then or later.  DL&W would have been better off (as we all
have discussed ad nauseam) with NKP, or possibly with Wabash, via Niagara Falls.  That would have
taken some work to make a good connection, but if you look at this map from 1953
http://home.comcast.net/~wabashrr/images/WabSysMap1949.jpg
(there are probably better maps available on line) that could have been a formidable competitor for
the other main trunk lines.  It even gets past Chicago!
  
> Erie on the other hand could have formed, without a merger, an  affiliation 
> with Santa Fe. They were both in the position to do so. If that took  place, 
> that would have given both a trans-continental railroad without having to  
> answer to the ICC. Again, the Chicago interchange.

Think about that in conjunction with the D&H idea above.
  
> Lackawanna on the other hand, had for the most part, very good management  
> but again, it was a much smaller railroad and much easier to manage as compared  
> to Erie. Although it was smaller than Erie and others in the Northeast, it's  
> feats are uncompared. DLW was the shortest route between NYC (Hoboken) and  
> Buffalo. They did it well.

I think that, too, is an idea with merit.  I also think that the DL&W management was VERY hands-on
during it's glory years, while the ERIE, before the Van's interventions, was more of a series of
locally managed divisions.  Having said that, though, I've read minutes of the Board and Executive
Committee meetings from about 1904-1914.  They met weekly, for the most part, and were deeply
involved with relatively minor expenditures, what I recall as anything much over $200.  Right.  Two
hundred dollars.  Even in 1910, that wasn't that much money.

> The people who worked for both and then for the combined railway, I think  
> never became one. 

And I think this is in part due to the fact that they were formerly direct competitors, as opposed
to end-to-end complements.  If the DL&W had merged with the WAB, I don't think you would have seen
the same sort of issues arising.  Or ERIE with D&H.

There are others on our list who can refute this and I'd sure  
> like to hear them tell us otherwise.  Anyone out there who can tell us if Erie and Lackawanna 
> employees actually  put differences aside and worked for the success of Erie Lackawanna?
>  
> That's a story that as far as I know has yet to be told.

Agreed.

SGL


	The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
	Sponsored by the ELH&TS
	http://www.elhts.org
	To Unsubscribe: http://lists.elhts.org/erielackunsub.html

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