Home | Open Account | Help | 311 users online |
Member Login
Discussion
Media SharingHostingLibrarySite Info |
Nostalgia & History > Relationship between PRR and ATSF?Date: 02/14/04 03:02 Relationship between PRR and ATSF? Author: okieinexile What kind of relationship did the Pennsylvania RR and the Santa Fe have? I know there was one minor midwestern road that they owned half each. IIRC it was the Toledo, Peoria, and Western. I have also been told that the PRR and ATSF was each other's road of choice for transfer of coast to coast shipments. What other business relationships, if any, did they have?
Mark KG6PSK mark at markrobinson dot us www.markrobinson.us Date: 02/14/04 08:47 Re: Relationship between PRR and ATSF? Author: NarrowGauge In the summer of '56 the Pennsy leased a dozen oil burning 2-10-4's from the Santa Fe to supplement its aging fleet of J-1's in the Ohio area.
narrowgauge Date: 02/17/04 06:06 Re: Relationship between PRR and ATSF? Author: bnsfbob Santa Fe tried to balance favor with the Chicago connections, but NYC seemed to be the interchange partner of choice for freight and passenger business. The Streator, IL direct connection with NYC also furthered the relationship. When Santa Fe started to embrace high speed intermodal in the late 1950's, NYC was the only eastern RR that had the track and progressive management to echo the sentiment. I've always said that if the NYC had remained independent from the PC disaster, it would still be with us today.
The PRR, although adored by railfans, was a hopeless property business-wise. The Water Level Route sucessors, PC, CR and now CSX/NS carry on the interchange tradition with BNSF in Chicago. Bob Date: 02/17/04 16:25 Re: Relationship between PRR and ATSF? Author: nycman Bob, hear, hear!!!
Date: 02/18/04 12:05 Re: Relationship between PRR and ATSF? Author: rob_l bnsfbob Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------- > I've always said that if the NYC had > remained independent from the PC disaster, it > would still be with us today. > The PRR, although adored by railfans, was a > hopeless property business-wise. The Water Level > Route sucessors, PC, CR and now CSX/NS carry on > the interchange tradition with BNSF in Chicago. > Bob So why the hell did NYC management wish to merge (or get talked into merging with) with PRR? Best regards, Rob L. Date: 02/18/04 14:35 Re: Relationship between PRR and ATSF? Author: NYCSTL8 I don't remember all the details, but NYC mgmt did not want the PC merger. IIRC, Al Perlman remained in his office car until the last poss. moment, before emerging to sign the fateful documents. NYC+PRR was a bad idea from the beginning, one with zero chance of succeeding, about like trying to merge the Unitarians and the Southern Baptists. I still blame the late Stuart Saunders, about whom I find it nearly impossible to say anything good. What a mess.
Date: 02/21/04 20:42 PC Author: halfmoonharold NYC and PRR started talking in 1957, which helped spur the whole movement. When it didn't happen, NYC wanted to get in with C&O/B&O, but C&O didn't want them after they got the B&O. EL had happened, then N&W wanted to merge with NKP. The pressure was on to find a partner. The ICC would not allow NYC-PRR unless PRR gave up its interest in N&W. PRR made a bad decision, and gave up the N&W for the NYC. They thought they would save lots of money in eliminating overlapping facilities. As we can see now, mergers based on coal roads are the ones that worked. Greed, high taxes, declining traffic base, over-regulation, and mismanagement doomed the PC. Perlman didn't have a chance with the PRR guys controlling the money. NYC-C&O-B&O and PRR-N&W-NKP would have been better mergers, but only if the PRR management were smart enough to let the NKP and N&W guys run the show. They weren't smart enough to let Perlman do it!
Date: 02/22/04 00:23 Re: PC Author: bnsfbob halfmoonharold Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------- > NYC and PRR started talking in 1957, which helped > spur the whole movement. When it didn't happen, > NYC wanted to get in with C&O/B&O, but > C&O didn't want them after they got the > B&O. EL had happened, then N&W wanted to > merge with NKP. The pressure was on to find a > partner. The ICC would not allow NYC-PRR unless > PRR gave up its interest in N&W. PRR made a > bad decision, and gave up the N&W for the NYC. > They thought they would save lots of money in > eliminating overlapping facilities. As we can see > now, mergers based on coal roads are the ones that > worked. Greed, high taxes, declining traffic base, > over-regulation, and mismanagement doomed the PC. > Perlman didn't have a chance with the PRR guys > controlling the money. NYC-C&O-B&O and > PRR-N&W-NKP would have been better mergers, > but only if the PRR management were smart enough > to let the NKP and N&W guys run the show. They > weren't smart enough to let Perlman do it! This is a pretty good summary but a key factor was that the NYC and PRR were forced to take the NH in as part of PC. The NH was an especially hopeless property!. PC was a total recipe for disaster. Bob |