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

Re: (erielack) What shoulda been

As Randy points out, the ICC was more or less the mechanism by which public 
policy was applied to portions of the transportation system. This included, 
among other goals, preserving competition and maintaining essential 
services. In RR merger cases, this involved considering the interests of 
opposing entities, including other RR's. There was another reason for N&W 
taking on the EL and D&H: By the early 1960's, the die was cast for the 
realignment of Northeast RR's around the Big Two: NYC-PRR and C&O/B&O-N&W. 
Almost every "also-ran" RR, anticipating loss of competitive position, 
demanded protection in the form of inclusion in one or the other. So as a 
condition of approving the Big Two, it was agreed that WM and RDG were to be 
included in C&O/B&O, EL and D&H in N&W, and presumably LV with PC. The PC 
bankruptcy in June, 1970 killed this grand scheme; shortly thereafter, 
C&O/B&O and N&W withdrew their merger application.

The PC-New Haven case was different in that this was not a precondition of 
PC. The New Haven was forced onto PC by ICC order precipitously and in 
response to a crisis situation, because by the end of 1969 the NH was out of 
cash and the trustee was threatening imminent liquidation. So the ICC saw 
itself as carrying out its mandate of preserving essential services, but I 
understand there was considerable political pressure to do so in the 
interest of expediency and avoidance of public subsidy. The fact that PC was 
further weakened by its absorption of the NH was partly its own fault, as 
its increasingly precarious financial position was being effctively 
concealed from the investing public.

Paul B

From: "Janet & Randy Brown" <jananran_@_mymailstation.com>
Subject: Re:Re: (erielack) What shoulda been

The ICC had no agenda, other than to obey the law as written by Congress and 
judged by the Federal courts.  When they considered if a thing should 
happen, the system provided avenues for support and protest, and for appeal 
and judicial review of the consequent ICC decisions.  The ICC themselves 
were part of the Exectutive branch, but subject to pressures of the laws 
written by Congress, themselves under pressure from their constituents (the 
voters) and supporters (the railroads and shippers, who contributed to 
campaigns but were seldom in parallel on transportation issues).  If a 
decision went to court and was re-decided -- either way -- the ICC had to 
follow the new instructions until the whole process (which could take years) 
ground out another set of rules.  Then the whole thing started all over 
again.  Meanwhile, boom and bust and technology played their own game right 
in the middle of the field.

Imagine the Australian Open, the FBR Invitational, and the Super Bowl being 
played simultaneously on the same field for real, long-term stakes involving 
the whole economy before an audience which could -- and would -- change any 
and all of the rosters.

What happened, happened.

Randy Brown, admitted to practice before the ICC on October 30, 1970.
- - --------------------------------------------------------------
Michael writes:

> The N&W  did not want to take the EL or the D&H, they were ordered to by
> the
>ICC as a price for the approval of the N&W-NKP merger. The Dereco
> >mechanism was to keep the EL and D&H at arm's length. The Penn Central's
> >inclusion of the NYNH&H on January 1st, 1969, was similarly the result of
>an >ICC order.  Since the ICC ordered it, it must have been OK.  The ICC,
>after all, is

Mike -- Can you cite any evidence that the ICC ordered this on its own 
initiative or in an arbitrary and capricious manner, inventing these orders 
out of thin air?

Thanks!

Cheers,
Jim Guthrie
 


	The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
	http://EL-List.railfan.net/
	To Unsubscribe: http://Lists.Railfan.net/erielackunsub.html

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