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

(erielack) Re: EL Mail List Digest V3 #3009

FWIW, the LV was a special case, deemed unwanted by the PRR, but neither C&O 
nor N&W found it desirable enough to include in either system in the early 
1960s.

The original late 50s merger proposals were PRR + N&W and NYC + C&O/B&O, 
I've forgotten now how that got sidetracked into Penn Central, but I don't 
remember ever reading about a N&W/C&O/B&O combo.  With the Nickel Plate and 
Wabash (and EL?) that would have made for a road with as equally redundant 
trackage as Penn Central had.  Just a guess but I'm not sure that would have 
been allowed to go through.


The only other question I have is why the hell are we discussing politically 
correct terms for Indians on this list?  Was Phoebe Snow a Native American? 
Be PC, don't be PC, but I have more important things to worry about. 
Besides, didn't the PC fall apart in the end anyways?



Bill K.



- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "EL Mail List Digest" <erielack-digest_@_lists.railfan.net>
To: <erielack-digest_@_lists.railfan.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 5:33 AM
Subject: EL Mail List Digest V3 #3009



> From: "Paul Brezicki" <doctorpb_@_bellsouth.net>
> Subject: 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> 


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

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