@WaterproofPotatoes suggested I use this thread to save wear and tear on the PMs where my railroad TL was getting ideas.
The problem is, these mergers are creating monopolies. Even with a weakened ICC, the Federal Government is not letting that go through. They'll bring an anti-trust suit.Admittedly, I should have had the Santa Fe + Frisco merger take place later. Guess I was looking too far forward.
Nonetheless, my main reason for the merger was several:
- The Frisco's lines would fill up a few holes in the Santa Fe's network in Oklahoma and northern Texas. For example, better linking Tulsa, OK with the rest of the system.
- The southern Pacific's able to transfer with southeastern roads at New Orleans. Santa Fe could use the SLSF's Birmingham division as a less congested alternative to New Orleans.
As it is, my main idea for regulation would be the effort to avoid parallel roads where possible.
Admittedly, I should have had the Santa Fe + Frisco merger take place later. Guess I was looking too far forward.
Nonetheless, my main reason for the merger was several:
- The Frisco's lines would fill up a few holes in the Santa Fe's network in Oklahoma and northern Texas. For example, better linking Tulsa, OK with the rest of the system.
- The southern Pacific's able to transfer with southeastern roads at New Orleans. Santa Fe could use the SLSF's Birmingham division as a less congested alternative to New Orleans.
As it is, my main idea for regulation would be the effort to avoid parallel roads where possible.
True. LOLComedy option: Have the MILW and Frisco merge, with the new company headquartered in Kansas City. Rename it St. Louis and Milwaukee so it doesn't matter that it doesn't go to San Fransisco.
Actually, the SLSF of my TL is still a fallen flag. It depends, but the basic idea is that another railroad buys them up instead of BN.@Andrew Boyd , why is it so important to you that MILW and Frisco survive?
That actually reminds me of what @TheMann's Conrail is like. Even so, one of my main goals is to have much of the railroads divided by certain regions. Which is why I had the idea of BN giving off various concessions in its merger.@Andrew Boyd this may be a crazy idea, but what if the NYC merged with the MILW? IIRC, they're both going to be largely electrified. And it would create a true coast-to-coast rail network
Well in my TL, I was thinking a condition of the BN merger would be to concede the C&S south of Pueblo. Allowing the ATSF to get it in the end.I should bention that I found out recently that the Burlington purchased a significant amout of stock (I think about 40% or something, will have to check later) in the Frisco in 1966. And that was 4 years prior to the BN merger. So that apparently was a factor in why it was merged into BN.
On that front, I could see the Oakdale line extended.Also, while looking at their routes, I think it would be more beneficial to the Santa Fe if it had a line across southern Arkansas, like the Rock Island Memphis line, or something that would extend their line in southern Louisiana to at least New Orleans.
Well in my TL, I was thinking a condition of the BN merger would be to concede the C&S south of Pueblo. Allowing the ATSF to get it in the end.
On that front, I could see the Oakdale line extended.
With railroads I am more certain on, here are some ideas:
- Southern eventually electrifies the main line from Cincinnati to Chattanooga through the Rathole Division.
- Union Pacific keeps Big Boy 4023 and eventually restores that instead of 4014.
- B&O gets just what's needed of the Western Maryland to reach the Reading, whereas New York Central gets the rest of the WM for the line to Baltimore.
- The Missouri Pacific takes up the Chicago Great Western for its route from Kansas City to the Twin Cities.
Any further ideas are welcome.
@Andrew Boyd this may be a crazy idea, but what if the NYC merged with the MILW? IIRC, they're both going to be largely electrified. And it would create a true coast-to-coast rail network
I actually was thinking the C&S would be given to the Rio Grande instead. Loosely based on @TheMann's idea for a line his DRGW built in 1990s.I don't see a benefit for the Santa Fe to get that line. They already have their own line from Denver to Galveston and you can see it on the provided maps above.
I actually was thinking the C&S would be given to the Rio Grande instead. Loosely based on @TheMann's idea for a line his DRGW built in 1990s.
Keep in mind, if the ICC had deregulated passenger fares for rail (or at least loosened the controls), they would have done the same for the airlines. So passenger traffic won't really change. In fact, it may go down. With the cost of rail travel increasing and the cost of air travel decreasing, more people are going to choose to fly over taking the train. Particularly as the 50s draw to a close.De-regulation of the railroads allows many to set fares for passenger rail more easily.
See my above comment about the effects of deregulation. I think there will be fewer state level networks than you're suggesting, though still more than today.Certain states draw up plans for passenger train services with various railroads. New York with NYC, Alabama with L&N, Pennsylvania with PRR, Georgia with the Southern, Missouri with the MoPac, etc. Assuming Amtrak does exist ITTL, there would still be state networks.
I really like this! Perhaps have ALCO partner with Chrysler on supplying engines after GM screws them leading to an eventual merger/buyout.ALCO survives with Chrysler getting it.
If I may offer a bit of, hopefully, constructive criticism? Write you're timeline, not TheMann's. Otherwise why should people read yours when they get the same thing from someone else? Not to mention, you're working in a very different environment than he is.I actually was thinking the C&S would be given to the Rio Grande instead. Loosely based on @TheMann's idea for a line his DRGW built in 1990s.