Nostalgia & History > An Esch-Cummins Plan That Works

Ever since the end of the USRA era in 1920, the railroad industry has made many major turns. Some causing ripple effects throughout the entire country. We have seen railroads both grow and prosper, or shrivel up and die. Some we’ve even seen being taken over by the government. But one thing is for sure: Everything changed when the government let go of the railroads.

But what if the government never let go of the railroads? What if some of the plans that were gone over about the Complete Consolidation Plan of 1929, actually happened? It’s difficult to say what the railroad situation wood look like. However, based on what we know and using critical and creative thinking, we can make a good mental picture of what this would have look like.

But before we jump into this, let’s look at the history behind this. In 1920, Congress passed the Esch-Cummins Act. This Act (officially called the Transportation Act of 1920) not only returned the railroads back to the private sector from USRA control during WWI, but it also instructed the Interstate Commerce Commission to create a plan to consolidate the railroads of the United States into a limited number of systems to preserve competition between the railroads. That last point is extremely crucial in understanding this. In 1929, the ICC released its initial plan, listing mainly the Class I railroads. All railroads Class II or lower would be merged into the railroad that they had a majority connection with. The plan included the following:

Boston & Maine: Bangor & Aroostook; Delaware & Hudson; Maine Central

New York, New Haven & Hartford: Lehigh & Hudson River; Lehigh & New England; New York, Ontario & Western

New York Central: Chicago, Attica & Southern; Rutland; Virginian

Pennsylvania: Long Island: 50% of Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Line

Baltimore & Ohio: Buffalo & Susquehanna; Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh; Central Railroad of New Jersey; Chicago & Alton; Reading; 50% of Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville; 50% of Detroit & Toledo Shore Line; 50% of Detroit, Toledo & Ironton Railroad; 50% of Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Line

Chesapeake & Ohio – New York, Chicago & St. Louis: Bessemer & Lake Erie; Chicago & Illinois Midland; Delaware, Lackawanna & Western; Detroit & Mackinac; Erie; Hocking Valley; Pere Marquette; 50% of Detroit & Toledo Shore Line

Wabash – Seaboard Air Line: Akron, Canton & Youngstown; Ann Arbor; Lehigh Valley; Norfolk & Western; Pittsburgh & West Virginia; Toledo, Peoria & Western; Western Maryland; Wheeling & Lake Erie; 50% of Detroit, Toledo & Ironton; 50% of Winston-Salem Southbound

Atlantic Coast Line: Atlanta, Birmingham & Coast; Clinchfield; Georgia; Gulf, Mobile & Northern; Louisville & Nashville; Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis; New Orleans Great Northern; 50% of Winston-Salem Southbound; 25% of Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville

Southern: Florida East Coast; Norfolk Southern; Tennessee Central (east of Nashville, Tennessee); 25% of Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville

Illinois Central: Atlanta & St. Andrews Bay; Central of Georgia; Minneapolis & St. Louis; St. Louis Southwestern; Tennessee Central (west of Nashville)

Chicago & North Western: Chicago & Eastern Illinois; Columbus & Greenville; Lake Superior & Ishpeming; Litchfield & Madison; Mobile & Ohio

Great Northern – Northern Pacific: Spokane, Portland & Seattle; 50% of Butte, Anaconda & Pacific

Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific: Duluth & Iron Range; Duluth, Missabe & Northern; Escanaba & Lake Superior; 50% of Butte, Anaconda & Pacific; Trackage rights on Spokane, Portland & Seattle to Portland, Oregon.

Chicago, Burlington & Quincy: Colorado & Southern; Fort Worth & Denver; Green Bay & Western; Missouri-Kansas-Texas; Oklahoma City-Ada-Atoka; 50% of Trinity & Brazos Valley

Union Pacific: Kansas City Southern

Southern Pacific

Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe: Chicago Great Western; Kansas City, Mexico & Orient; Midland Valley; Minneapolis, Northfield & Southern; Missouri & North Arkansas

Missouri Pacific: Denver & Rio Grande Western; Denver & Salt Lake; Fort Smith & Western; Kansas, Oklahoma & Gulf; Texas & Pacific; Western Pacific

Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific – St. Louis-San Francisco: Alabama, Tennessee & Northern; Louisiana & Arkansas; Meridian & Bigbee; 50% of Trinity & Brazos Valley

Canadian National: Central Vermont; Duluth, Winnipeg & Pacific; Grand Trunk; Grand Trunk Western

Canadian Pacific: Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic; Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie; Spokane International; Wisconsin Central

After the plan was released, there was instantly discussion by the railroads, who had themselves given their own opinions on who they would prefer to be merged with. Everyone had something to complain about. The plan proved to be a disaster and with the arrival of the Great Depression, which rsulted in several railroads going bankrupt, and WWII looming on the horizon, Congress finally repealed the act in 1940.

However, this plan does have some merit to it, and it helped establish some of the railroad mergers of the future. And, coming from over 95 years in the future from when the Act was first passed, we can actually see how some of these plans would have worked, or not worked. And, using what we know of history, we can rearrange these railroads to fit better and make a world that avoids many of the problems that we saw throughout railroad history in America.

First off, let’s group up these railroads by region and then discuss them individually.

New England: Boston & Maine; New York, New Haven & Hartford

It was already decided that New England would be divided up in to two railroads. B&M would take the primary railroads in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and Northern Massachusetts, while the New Haven would take the railroads in Connecticut, Rhode Island and Southern Massachusetts. They would also get railroads in New York. B&M would get the D&H which would give it Northeastern New York and an in to Scranton, PA, and the NH would get the NYO&W which would put it towards Western New York.

Both of these railroads are arranged well and, in a way, turn out pretty well. Also, we end up seeing the B&M plan fold out in the form of Guilford, now Pan Am. But, there is one issue, and that is with the New Haven’s Pennsylvania acquisitions of the L&NE and L&HR. Both of these lines are parallel and cannot be in the same system. If we are going to remove anyone, the L&NE would be the one. We will add it to another railroad later.

Northeast: New York Central; Pennsylvania; Baltimore & Ohio; Chesapeake & Ohio-Nickel Plate; Wabash

For the most part, these systems work out rather well. They generally keep the railroads that were owned by the primary companies with each other. This works out in the long run and even completes the proposed Van Sweringen system with the Nickel Plate, C&O and Erie.

However, the issue comes in with the Wabash system. When a pre-release for the mergers came out in the early 1920’s, Wabash made a big deal about the fact that is was split in half. Its eastern lines were given to the Erie and its western lines given to UP. Wabash insisted that it not be split in half. So, the ICC made a plan surrounding the Wabash.

However, when you look at the plan from afar, you see that the railroads that made up the system are a hodgepodge of the leftover railroads that were not put into the other systems. Some of the railroads fit into the system; W&LE, DTI, and WM. The LV works to an extent, through the Wabash’s trackage rights through Canada. But railroads like the N&W and SAL definitely do not work. First off, it gives the Wabash an unfair advantage as it is the only railroad to have three Ohio-Atlantic routes with two systems only having one route. It also creates an issue as the DTI would be a horrible bottleneck for the railroad through both the railroad’s southern topography and the fact that it is the only connection with the N&W and SAL.

One option that is available would be to eliminate the Wabash from the proposal completely and distribute its railroad parts to other railroads. However, this is unfair for one specific reason. If you were to look at a map of all the railroads that are in the eastern half of the united states, you will notice that there are a total of ten east west mainline routes. The B&O, NYC, PRR, C&O and Erie all have one of these East-West routes that go all the way to Chicago. The other five railroads, when added to these railroads, will add one additional route to each of them.

The NYC is fairly set in this system as it gains its second mainline from the Virginian. The only issue that we have is with the CA&S. The CA&S, originally the Chicago & Western Indiana, was a subsidiary of the C&EI. It was eventually spun off due to being not profitable enough and was eventually abandoned. The CA&S doesn't fit well with the NYC due to it being a parallel road. The only option would be to return the CA&S to the C&EI and whoever acquires it.

The PRR's second mainline can arrive in the form of the N&W which will remove it from the Wabash system. While some people may complain that the PRR is already big enough, you need to remember that the N&W was owned by the PRR at the time, so it naturally works. Also, PRR gets ownership of the TP&W as it does not work as well with the Wabash system.

The B&O can gain its second mainline in the form of the DL&W. The DL&W already connects well with the RDG and CNJ in the east as well as the BR&P in the west. And, it can also acquire the L&NE. When the L&NE was abandoned in the 1950’s, the CNJ took over operations of a few of its lines. This still works and gives the B&O an additional line to connect with the New England roads in New York. Finally, the B&O would relinquish its partial ownership of the DT&I to the Wabash due to it being parallel to its own line between Toledo and Cincinnati. Just because the DT&I was a bottleneck doesn’t mean it doesn’t fit into the Wabash system.

The best route for the Wabash to gain would be the Erie. As stated earlier, the Wabash would have been split with the Erie and UP. This still works, despite keeping the Wabash in one piece. However, this would require swapping the Erie with the LV. This is because the Van Sweringens would probably not put up as much of a fight over loosing the Erie since they already had some ownership in the LV. Also, since the Van Sweringen roads get the PM there is no need for the D&TSL. So, full ownership of it can go to the B&O and give it a direct route into Detroit.These arrangements gives all the railroads two Ohio-Atlantic routes and keeps competition within the railroad families that are in the area.

Southeast: Atlantic Coast Line; Southern; Illinois Central; Wabash; Chicago & North Western

The major railroads of this group generally stuck with their family ties. The ACL family stuck together without incident, and the Southern took over the railroads that would extend it to where it didn’t reach. Even the IC held onto the CofG. However, the issues with these railroads begins with the Wabash-Seaboard plan.

We can already guess that the SAL would have to go with someone else. And, in order to avoid merging parallel railroads, we would automatically give the SAL to the IC. This was, in fact, the original plan in the pre-release of the proposals. However, doing this poses a problem.

Of all the railroads in the south, the IC would have been the only one to not get a major play in central Kentucky and Tennessee. I personally have always been a firm believer that the NC&StL never should have merged into the L&N. L&N already has some parallel lines and could have gotten between Chattanooga and Nashville via trackage rights or just not had a line directly between the two at all. So, we move the NC&StL and full ownership of the Tennessee Central over to IC. Even though I am a man that believes in railroad families sticking together, this is the only exception that I make in an effort to preserve competition between the railroads.

The second issue with the Southeast railroads is with the C&NW. (Seriously ICC!?! It’s called the Chicago & North Western for a reason. It’s not the Chicago & South Eastern!) So, we eliminate this railroad completely and send the southern railroads to their respectful owners. The C&G goes to the IC and the M&O goes to the Southern since they had owned that road for some time and attempted to merge it at one point.

The third issue we see is with the rest of the IC. We see that the ICC intended to give the IC the Cotton Belt and the M&StL. (I guess they were trying to make a railroad that looked like the upside down version of their C&SE!) We already know that this doesn’t work. We keep the southern roads in the South and nothing more. So we eliminate those railroads from the system and send them to others later on.

The fourth and final issue we see with these railroads is with the Monon. While I understand the reasoning behind this, to give SOU and ACL a direct route into Chicago. I do not find it in good interest to do such a thing as it would be a very complicated situation to go through. My solution to this would be to give the Monon solely to the B&O and grant trackage rights from Louisville to Chicago to both ACL and SOU.

Northwestern: Great Northern-Northern Pacific; Milwaukee Road; Chicago & North Western

These first two railroads are fairly well put together roads. They work out in the long run and it is certain that this will not end up like these railroad in our time line. The only changes that I would suggest would be to give the BA&P fully to the MILW and give the M&StL to the Great Northern Pacific! And of course, we give the C&NW to the UP; it’s just obvious.

Midwestern: Chicago, Burlington & Quincy; Missouri Pacific; Union Pacific

In remembering that this plan is to preserve competition between the railroads, we would want to make sure that all the railroads match up to give everyone an equal opportunity. Almost all the railroads west of the Mississippi we want to touch at least Chicago and Minneapolis and the midwestern and southwestern ones we want to touch the Gulf of Mexico in at least more than one place. We also want them to be truly transcontinental.From a layman's perspective, all of these railroads work. But, when you look at them in more detail, you find some problems. Already, we see that both MP and UP do not get to Minneapolis or Chicago. We’ve already solved UP’s problem by giving them the C&NW. But then we need to figure out what to do about the MP.

My first proposal was to give MP the CGW so that it would connect with Minneapolis. The railroad fits well and it doesn’t conflict with anything else on the railroad. But if we did that then we are taking away Santa Fe’s opportunity to connect with Minneapolis. The only solution I had there was to give it the M&StL since it connects with the Santa Fe in Peoria, IL. But the M&StL doesn’t fit into the Santa Fe system all that well. And we couldn’t go around the other way.

Then, a few months ago, I was reading an article about the California Zephyr passenger train of the CB&Q. It said that the railroad used both the Rio Grande and the WP to operate the train west of Denver. I had also seen maps that showed that the WP provided a perfect connection between Santa Fe’s northernmost California point and BN’s southernmost California point.And then it hit me. Both the CB&Q and the MP would be merged into a single system. The CB&Q and MP don’t have any conflicting lines and fit almost flush to each other. It gives the MP its access to Minneapolis and a better route to Chicago than through the C&EI (Which, along with the CA&S, would be transferred over to C&O from the ill-fated C&NW plan as it gives them a direct Chicago-St. Louis connection. And as a bonus, the line was already owned by the Van Sweringens) It also fills in the gap that the CB&Q has between the C&S and the MKT, the latter of which it would no longer need, and allows the Santa Fe to keep the CGW to Minneapolis.

The final railroad to discuss would be the left over MKT. We know it can’t go to MP-CB&Q because of parallel lines. If the CB&Q had merged with the Frisco, which would have been another proper railroad in its own right, then maybe it could have gone with that. We know that it can’t go to the Rock Island or Santa Fe as they both have parallel lines and it most certainly couldn’t go into UP... or can it?When you look at it from a distance you would say “No! The MKT parallels the KCS which the UP is getting. And we don’t want parallel roads.” That is true. But when you look at a few other things, you see something more. MKT gives UP a direct line into St. Louis and also takes it to Galveston and Huston, TX, which it doesn’t get through KCS. When you look at it that way, putting MKT with UP doesn’t look so bad anymore.

Southwestern: Rock Island-Frisco; Santa Fe; Southern Pacific

The main railroad in this group we will discuss is the Rock Island-Frisco. Once again, this looks like it would work. Frisco generally stays in Missouri, Arkansas and eastern Texas while the Rock Island stays in Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma and western Texas. But when you look at it operationally, there are several major issues. So this plan no longer fits. The only option would be to split the two railroads apart and give them to others. The only two railroads that appear to be contenders in this are the Santa Fe and the SP. The SP as it stands gets nothing, which we already know doesn’t work. How can we picture the SP without the Cotton Belt! The SP and the Rock Island almost fit together like a glove, like they were meant to be. You have the Albuquerque line which sends SP to Kansas City, The Cotton Belt gives the railroad a southeast border and a route from New Orleans to St. Louis and the Rock Island puts SP into Minneapolis.

The only other issue with this would be the original Central Pacific line which, if SP got trackage rights over MP or UP between Salt Lake City and Denver, would have made it the only two transcon railroad in the west. One possibility would be to give the CP line to the UP. But I will leave this one up for debate.

Then you have the Frisco. Early on, Santa Fe and Frisco tried to merge. Santa Fe wanted Frisco to put it into St Louis and for its line through Alabama. The Frisco wanted Santa Fe so it could get to San Francisco, and fulfill the second half of its name. The two railroads fit together and it seems to be a perfect match.

Canadian Subsidiaries: Canadian National; Canadian Pacific

This final section is a fairly simple one when looked at from a distance: The American subsidiaries of the two Canadian railroads becoming a direct part of their respectful owners. That’s what happened in our time line, that’s what should happen now.

But hold on, we saw what happened with that in our time line. SOO bought MILW, sold its own lines to the Wisconsin Central, and then were bought by CN, when, in reality, GTW should have gotten the MILW. So, why don’t we make a compromise here? First, we already know that the CV and the GT should go to CN and that the SI should go to CP. They’re on opposite sides of the map from the bulk of the other railroads and they can’t really merge with anyone else because of their ownership.

But, when we get into the bulk railroads in the Great Lakes, that’s where we have some fun. Instead of having the two railroads separate, why not merge the SOO and GTW into a single company that is owned 50-50 between CN and CP? This has several advantages. First, it combines these railroads into one that can be easily regulated by the US government. Second, the railroads fit together decently (as we’ve seen in our time line). And thirdly, it gives both CN and CP an advantage. It gives CN a connection between its GTW and DWP, and it gives CP a connection between Chicago and Detroit. We could even go as far as putting CV, GT and SI under the control of this road as well, similar to what CN did in 1971 when it created a separate holding company for its American roads. But I'll leaving that up for debate as well.

One thing about this however is that no matter how we do this, the SOO will be getting a monopoly in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. The only way to settle this would be to remove the DSS&A from the system and hand it over to the Great Northern Pacific. It already had trackage rights to Duluth over the NP and fits perfectly into the system.

So, after going over all these railroads, analyzing them, rearranging them, and defining them, we have reduced the number of railroads from 21 to just 16. These complete railroads are listed here:

Boston & Maine: Bangor & Aroostook; Delaware & Hudson; Maine Central

New York, New Haven & Hartford: Lehigh & Hudson River; New York, Ontario & Western

New York Central: Rutland; Virginian

Pennsylvania: Long Island; Norfolk & Western; Toledo, Peoria & Western; 50% of the Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Line; 50% of the Winston-Salem Southbound

Baltimore & Ohio: Buffalo & Susquehanna; Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh; Central Railroad of New Jersey; Chicago & Alton; Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville; Delaware, Lackawanna & Western; Detroit & Toledo Shore Line; Lehigh & New England; Reading; 50% of the Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Line

New York, Chicago & St. Louis: Bessemer & Lake Erie; Chesapeake & Ohio; Chicago & Eastern Illinois; Chicago & Illinois Midland; Chicago, Attica & Southern; Detroit & Mackinac; Hocking Valley; Lehigh Valley; Pere Marquette

Wabash & Erie: Akron, Canton & Youngstown; Ann Arbor; Detroit, Toledo & Ironton; Erie; Pittsburgh & West Virginia; Wabash; Western Maryland; Wheeling & Lake Erie

Atlantic Coast Line: Atlanta, Birmingham & Coast; Clinchfield; Georgia Route; Gulf Mobile & Northern; Louisville & Nashville; New Orleans Great Northern; 50% of the Winston-Salem Southbound; Trackage rights over the Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville to Chicago

Southern: Florida East Coast; Mobile & Ohio; Norfolk Southern; Trackage rights over the Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville to Chicago

Illinois Central: Atlanta & St. Andrews Bay; Central of Georgia; Columbus & Greenville; Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis; Seaboard Air Line; Tennessee Central

Great Northern Pacific: Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic; Great Northern; Minneapolis & St. Louis; Northern Pacific; Spokane, Portland & Seattle

Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific: Butte, Anaconda & Pacific; Duluth & Iron Range; Duluth, Missabe & Northern; Escanaba & Lake Superior; Trackage rights on Spokane, Portland & Seattle to Portland, Oregon.

Union Pacific: Central Pacific; Chicago & North Western; Kansas City Southern; Lake Superior & Ishpeming; Litchfield & Madison; Louisiana & Arkansas; Missouri-Kansas-Texas

Chicago, Missouri & Pacific: Chicago, Burlington & Quincy; Colorado & Southern; Denver & Rio Grande Western; Denver & Salt Lake; Fort Smith & Western; Fort Worth & Denver; Green Bay & Western; Kansas, Oklahoma & Gulf; Missouri Pacific; Oklahoma City-Ada-Atoka; Texas & Pacific; Western Pacific; 50% of the Trinity & Brazo Valley;

Southern Pacific: Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific; St. Louis South Western; 50% of the Trinity & Brazo Valley

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe: Chicago Great Western; Kansas City, Mexico & Orient; Meridian & Bigbee; Midland Valley; Minneapolis, Northfield & Southern; Missouri & North Arkansas; St. Louis-San Francisco

Canadian-American International: Duluth, Winnipeg & Pacific; Grand Trunk Western; Minneapolis, St. Paul & Saute Ste. Marie; Wisconsin Central

Having these railroad systems rearranges everything into a set number of railroads that are evenly competitive and set in their own region. And I can guarantee you that these systems could have worked. Would these proposals have prevented everything we saw in the course of railroad history in America? That's a hard one to answer. And because of the world we live in, we can only speculate as to what this would have looked like had it happened.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/27/16 08:39 by SD80MACfan.

Fascinating! I would be leery of "guaranteeing" that the changes would have worked, having lived 80 years and watched how we humans operate - there are always factors that get in the way of perfection. I got to watch some of this while working at FRA HQ in DC in the early '80s....
Anyway, kudos for all your efforts!
 

Bill Deaver
Tehachapi, CA

MojaveBill Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fascinating! I would be leery of "guaranteeing"
> that the changes would have worked, having lived
> 80 years and watched how we humans operate - there
> are always factors that get in the way of
> perfection. I got to watch some of this while
> working at FRA HQ in DC in the early '80s....
> Anyway, kudos for all your efforts!
>  

Thank you. This has been a work in progress for over two years for me. I'm big into the "What If" when it comes to the railroads, but of all the scenarios to work with, this has been my favorite. I know that "guaranteeing" that things will work out is something that most theorists like myself should avoid but this is what I view as being the best. Sure there are other ideas that might have worked better down the road, but for me this is the best I've got. Thanks for the support.

That's a lot of work, thanks for sharing it.

Looking back a hundred years is interesting.  New England was a powerhouse of industry in those days. Now beat up crime ridden towns were bustling factory towns in 1920. Watches, clocks, barrels, hats, furniture. Having access to coal fields in PA would be extremely valuable to whoever controlled the NYO&W, L&NE etc.

The silk mills in Paterson NJ were running full blast, locomotives were rolling off the assembly lines, Erie was originating many freights daily from Passaic and Paterson.

The blue print for consolidation was authored by Harvard Professor William Ripley (no relation to the ATSF President) in 1921. His book, "Railway Problems: An Early History of Competition, Rates and Regulations" was recently republished.

Though I've never read the plan, I wonder how it would address the complicated and interlocking railroad finances and charters. When the New York Central brought the Lake Shore and Michigan Southern into its fold, it was such an onerous task to appease all the bond holders and original charters that the NYC abandoned further consolidation of its remaining leased lines like the Michigan Central, Big Four, P&LE, etc., and operated them as separate entities.