Re: EL Fate (was RE: (erielack) Alco Farewell / Economy Changes)

["Paul Brezicki" <doctorpb_@_bellsouth.net>]

I doubt that there was serious interest on the part of any trucking company 
in acquiring EL or any other RR. There was the TOFC Inc partnership with 
Rail-Trailer that is described in detail in the current Diamond, but that's 
as far as it went. First of all, as Mr Guthrie points out, it was a 
regulatory impossibility. For truckers participating in Plan I or Plan V 
business, piggyback constituted a small portion of their business. During 
the 1960's as the interstate system was built out, truckers use of 
intermodal was increasingly for overflow and over-weight business, which is 
why TOFC was particularluy vulnerable in recession years. With the opening 
of I-80 across PA in 1974, truckers could provide more or less overnight 16 
hour NY-Chicago service , 24 hr faster than EL piggyback when you include 
terminal time. From that point, EL TOFC was primarily UPS and forwarder 
business, as it was simply not competitive for other traffic. UPS would have 
no interest in acquiring EL, as it was in the parcel business, not the RR 
business. In the era of rail route redundancy, it could shift business to 
whatever RR was willing and able to provide the requisite service (if none, 
it could use the highway). That's how EL got the business from PC in 1970. A 
strategic rail-truck acquisition that actually occurred (but in reverse) was 
the post-regulation purchase of Overnight by UP. I believe the idea here was 
for UP to provide transcontinental single-carrier service by trucking from 
Chicago, St Louis and Memphis. In other words, bypass eastern RR's entirely. 
For whatever reason, this didn't happen as planned, and UP eventually sold 
Overnight.

I vaguely recall Kneiling suggesting use of EL as a purely intermodal route, 
but this was in the context of an integral train system that would supplant 
the loose-car model. EL was not entirely doublestack ready. Croxton-Buffalo 
had the requisite clearances but not for stacked 9'6" containers. The 
mainline west of Hornell would have required some work. There were 
restrictive clearances through Akron, and there may have been others. 
Ultimately, EL's route to Chicago was doomed by an inferior alignment that 
was both roundabout and hilly; PC's routes were superior. Use of EL for 
stacks was purely a temporizing measure until clearances could be improved 
on ex-PC routes. I don't see any realistic scenario that would have kept EL 
alive after 1975.

Paul B


From: Michael Connor <mjconnor_rr_@_hotmail.com>
Subject: EL Fate (was RE: (erielack) Alco Farewell / Economy Changes)

ETM
The Consolidated Freightways angle is interesting as William G. White (no 
relation to brothers Garrett C. White, Erie/EL's VP-O [till his brother Wm 
came back to EL and found a none-EL home for him), and William White, DL&W 
President 1940-53 and EL Chairman 1963-67), the DL&W's VP-Optn until almost 
the merger had resigned from the DL&W and returned to his native California 
where he very quickly became President and Chairman of Consolidated 
Freightways, at the time one of nation's largest truck companies.  Do you 
have some leads or verifications on the CF interest in the EL?
MJC


 


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

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