jacksonbarno
Alco Spoken Here
Alternative Mergers in the US
Throughout the 1960's and 70's, railroads in the Northeast were in trouble. By 1976, Conrail had to be created to solve the problem of duplicate lines and bankrupt companies. At this time, the Chessie System wasn't much better. This left the N&W as the only profitable road in this region. I started to think about some other possibilities for mergers that could have occurred that would have been better choices. Do you guys think that these would have worked better?
At the beginning of Part I, the year is 1967.
NKP, Monon, & Erie: Even though the NKP paralleled the western portion of the Erie's route, the Erie had a roundabout way of reaching cities like Cleveland, and Buffalo. For any practical purpose, the Erie only really had Akron as a major city on their mainline, aside from NY and Chicago. The NKP had a more direct route between Buffalo and Chicago, but they didn't have any access to New York. Fitting these two lines together would have solved both of their problems, as the Erie mainline past Akron could have been easily abandoned in favor of the NKP route. With the NY - Chicago mainline secured, these lines would have looked for more business while still trying to find cheaper and smaller lines. The Monon would have been a good fit, as they were not too big or too rich while still providing more access to mew markets.
New Haven, DL&W, Wabash, and LNE/L&HR (Optional): These three (or four) roads all connected end to end and would have provided a competitive Boston - NY - Buffalo - Chicago route. The Wabash had a line through Canada which ran to Buffalo which would have connected with the DLW to New York. In New York, no direct connection with the New Haven existed, which would create a logistical problem and would have either necessitated a reroute over the NYC or PRR to connect. Another option would be to purchase the Lehigh and New England railway and the Lehigh and Hudson River railway, which would have provided an NH - DL&W connection.
B&O, RDG, CNJ/LV: This system would have derived from ties that had already previously been made. The B&O had control over the CNJ and Reading in the pre-Chessie years, and the lines in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York would have provided a sudo-end to end connection with each-other. The LV paralleled the CNJ in Pennsylvania and followed the same route. The CNJ and LV jointly used their parallel trackage in Pennsylvania, so the B&O could abandon the inferior LV New York facilities in favor of the CNJ ones.
NYC, WM, D&H, and C&O: The NYC courted the C&O in the 50's, but the merger plans fell through because of the NYC's shaky financial state. This would have worked because besides the C&O ex PM trackage in Michigan, the C&O had markets in the south that the NYC didn't have. The C&O could have abandoned the PM lines altogether and used the NYC lines in the Midwest and Northeast. The WM would have allowed for a competitive market with the B&O system. The Boston and Pennsylvania markets would prove to be a problem for this newly-created system, so they would seek to acquire the Delaware and Hudson. After merging with the D&H, the NYC/C&O system would have access to central Pennsylvania, as well as access to a new part of Canada: Montreal, where the system could interchange with the CP and CN.
P&LE, W&LE, B&LE, P&WV, and MGA: These Pittsburgh - oriented lines all have intersection points in Pittsburgh. All of these lines were more financially stable than the rest of the larger lines in the Northeast, and would have meshed nicely. The P&LE trackage would have made the P&WV trackage redundant except for the fact that the P&LE would be able to bypass downtown Pittsburgh and the congestion there. The Monongahela would have been a necessity because of their online coal traffic, and the W&LE would have provided connections to cities like Cleveland, Ashtabula, Toledo, Zanesville, and Sandusky. The B&LE would have also provided connections to Conneaut and Erie. This would have been a railroad more focused on coal and ore, and because of its smaller size, it would have less infrastructure to maintain.
PRR & N&W: These railroads had multiple connections and they both served markets that the other didn't have access to. This would have created one large system covering most of the eastern US. Because of their history together, they would have had no trouble meshing operating practices. The N&W was also fairly wealthy at this time, so they could put some of that towards paying off the PRR's debt and putting the company back in the black.
B&M & MEC + BAR: I think that the B&M and MEC would have definitely merged. They were almost together already as it was in the 1950's, and they were perfect for each other. The B&M had short-haul high density commuter business and the MEC had long-haul freight routes. The Central Vermont relied on the B&M to ferry it's trains from one part of it's route to the other to get to New London. Eventually, when the CN absorbed the Central Vermont, CN would have tried to buy out the MEC/B&M to try to get a lock on the Boston area. The ICC denied this takeover plan and set the B&M system free as an independent company again. By 1970, the Bangor and Arstrook was looking for a merger partner. The profitable B&M/MEC was looking for more routes in northern Maine, and the merger was approved by the ICC. This system would have been proftable, as i thad a monopoly on the Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire area.
So, what do you guys think?
Also, feel free to put your merger ideas down as well.
Throughout the 1960's and 70's, railroads in the Northeast were in trouble. By 1976, Conrail had to be created to solve the problem of duplicate lines and bankrupt companies. At this time, the Chessie System wasn't much better. This left the N&W as the only profitable road in this region. I started to think about some other possibilities for mergers that could have occurred that would have been better choices. Do you guys think that these would have worked better?
At the beginning of Part I, the year is 1967.
NKP, Monon, & Erie: Even though the NKP paralleled the western portion of the Erie's route, the Erie had a roundabout way of reaching cities like Cleveland, and Buffalo. For any practical purpose, the Erie only really had Akron as a major city on their mainline, aside from NY and Chicago. The NKP had a more direct route between Buffalo and Chicago, but they didn't have any access to New York. Fitting these two lines together would have solved both of their problems, as the Erie mainline past Akron could have been easily abandoned in favor of the NKP route. With the NY - Chicago mainline secured, these lines would have looked for more business while still trying to find cheaper and smaller lines. The Monon would have been a good fit, as they were not too big or too rich while still providing more access to mew markets.
New Haven, DL&W, Wabash, and LNE/L&HR (Optional): These three (or four) roads all connected end to end and would have provided a competitive Boston - NY - Buffalo - Chicago route. The Wabash had a line through Canada which ran to Buffalo which would have connected with the DLW to New York. In New York, no direct connection with the New Haven existed, which would create a logistical problem and would have either necessitated a reroute over the NYC or PRR to connect. Another option would be to purchase the Lehigh and New England railway and the Lehigh and Hudson River railway, which would have provided an NH - DL&W connection.
B&O, RDG, CNJ/LV: This system would have derived from ties that had already previously been made. The B&O had control over the CNJ and Reading in the pre-Chessie years, and the lines in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York would have provided a sudo-end to end connection with each-other. The LV paralleled the CNJ in Pennsylvania and followed the same route. The CNJ and LV jointly used their parallel trackage in Pennsylvania, so the B&O could abandon the inferior LV New York facilities in favor of the CNJ ones.
NYC, WM, D&H, and C&O: The NYC courted the C&O in the 50's, but the merger plans fell through because of the NYC's shaky financial state. This would have worked because besides the C&O ex PM trackage in Michigan, the C&O had markets in the south that the NYC didn't have. The C&O could have abandoned the PM lines altogether and used the NYC lines in the Midwest and Northeast. The WM would have allowed for a competitive market with the B&O system. The Boston and Pennsylvania markets would prove to be a problem for this newly-created system, so they would seek to acquire the Delaware and Hudson. After merging with the D&H, the NYC/C&O system would have access to central Pennsylvania, as well as access to a new part of Canada: Montreal, where the system could interchange with the CP and CN.
P&LE, W&LE, B&LE, P&WV, and MGA: These Pittsburgh - oriented lines all have intersection points in Pittsburgh. All of these lines were more financially stable than the rest of the larger lines in the Northeast, and would have meshed nicely. The P&LE trackage would have made the P&WV trackage redundant except for the fact that the P&LE would be able to bypass downtown Pittsburgh and the congestion there. The Monongahela would have been a necessity because of their online coal traffic, and the W&LE would have provided connections to cities like Cleveland, Ashtabula, Toledo, Zanesville, and Sandusky. The B&LE would have also provided connections to Conneaut and Erie. This would have been a railroad more focused on coal and ore, and because of its smaller size, it would have less infrastructure to maintain.
PRR & N&W: These railroads had multiple connections and they both served markets that the other didn't have access to. This would have created one large system covering most of the eastern US. Because of their history together, they would have had no trouble meshing operating practices. The N&W was also fairly wealthy at this time, so they could put some of that towards paying off the PRR's debt and putting the company back in the black.
B&M & MEC + BAR: I think that the B&M and MEC would have definitely merged. They were almost together already as it was in the 1950's, and they were perfect for each other. The B&M had short-haul high density commuter business and the MEC had long-haul freight routes. The Central Vermont relied on the B&M to ferry it's trains from one part of it's route to the other to get to New London. Eventually, when the CN absorbed the Central Vermont, CN would have tried to buy out the MEC/B&M to try to get a lock on the Boston area. The ICC denied this takeover plan and set the B&M system free as an independent company again. By 1970, the Bangor and Arstrook was looking for a merger partner. The profitable B&M/MEC was looking for more routes in northern Maine, and the merger was approved by the ICC. This system would have been proftable, as i thad a monopoly on the Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire area.
So, what do you guys think?
Also, feel free to put your merger ideas down as well.
Last edited: