I can also see the Xplorer livery used in my TL's Ohio State passenger rail line.

The road to it is rather complex. but basically, it's a Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati line that later extends to Louisville.
 
Would the first electric you showed be two conjoined engines or one engine?

I can see it for sure on the Rio Grande and southern of my TL.

The PRR E2b class locomotives were singles, although they were generally operated as pairs.

Southern was the first railroad in the US to completely dieselize- they won't want electrics
 
Would the first electric you showed be two conjoined engines or one engine?

I can see it for sure on the Rio Grande and southern of my TL.

That MILW electric is two articulated engines in C-C Wheel arrangment. I can tried make the drawing of them in D&RGW or Southern too
 
@Andrew Boyd, what you think of these two

EPH-60 (Electric Power Haul 6000) on D&RGW
WfIq0mBYkC26N56mQjJIQKvYHJ5C2TeiYRwoHl7La_y4Uoi8jE_O8VdSgKMGSa1S4rTXYdeZgO4-4nfXaeC_zNifWruDKJWVJn-aqNODYRQKnodGcnL3hvG4emRJZeKOLkoL4bzmtl84hOD1IjXSwCHaQFK7Q1F57vw0zMOz2yUkeQxgkIYvHiMpRXYxwVCciwcIUUiRPyxlBYagyMPKzZ2zf4LR1JpD0oiHxYiWht9cmxVzf-qFUnjBNQJPgjHM7HgHNj1eL5jIH02tkMEoa0XqHWeC0KsV2YPXik7cek_QXm6G9F-7XTrl1NTC38nGhcIos8M3X-ef-Pl7_-WAQgFyaCuounr8725O3mJ0M04sAPJnya1WVmEmgIKKTIIDSzHBwIJ3b-WGBnelVlfFA1Eo-HJSOBvRCQOzcMK023SPO6Xv6pUBYpXoXG7K_mftYrh-1PyNGYMedROcYS-mTY3SIPKkXsFVA2mGg6MWPOmUgBNMeimvg5eW0iFBLcH74ug7XbKXg-LZ4kGhjWqB60tt3jOdlzoXKseTCcEwrcrPDxkRwNQoEyBvZpUr_2T-qJJ3ctN_NjjO6WiQI6gdJuY0JVCcDWUk6KCVaquQkNi0oHzEkJy_KH8vkZ6rB9d_z43J6fvHXed_P_uPp1GY6P9Oag5OORbn=w1271-h283-no


EP-3500 Milwaukee Road
cMrIFnpIdl2diJj2AzgnaoV8zsilxBEVj-_WG3u8H3IXxwJRB_MyAZgdLMRiUpibBPcQ09bieUyPSzzjU41pnixtZ3mG29X2Af1W8vQ8wBl8jsmD-acAhZdr0A1eUgdIVg7niWusPHLcBoRIOTXGa3INIZ_BN905kbvcACZbbGOSSO5LMqXsFlA61vUWYUbsHUZFYRgAof9qfhabCAGuM6u8WU2VZquPFJSYrPZCltQKh3m-IIjaxPxRLnhPyxVMciApTBpDGvzTQc_zWqkOzuuqAjimnXaClhZNNqMekj9BfSKDFCRtGDb7bccPF87BXBj9qsmKK69I3LlGJiAOfmmdpMEECFH0B2L_-MVio1d5lAgOmI0863iRecm9oegQ-60awgXhEqrNnHLDHTHgVmOYlupSxcnpzXwCUCBJ7ZqZvf5ii2J-9qUWNp3iiclsuaQ_NLQQCdacfn8GkROUE89vLr--b8HdZXlEf2jZIuaYG0ZKWorB5G9DN3En91e75U9ww8fESwGsUcyX4AIZi0-2ayjNP_94-oZvjWqdh9Uu7OMpPToBZpUTidKja2w2yy9oauYQECIrHuFYfNpITvQQ1m4AmXqR_mUyusUGVUJMB5d5QNU5DNHHLQ3eRgUpOwLfCD7guWO2xbkAoz40620XEEcsWERM=w1072-h287-no
 
I read those links, and that is not the conclusion I reached. The Trainorders thread is mostly old-timers reminiscing about the pre-BNSF Santa Fe, and the american-rails thread tells the story of a small railroad flirting with bankruptcy most of its life, before briefly finding a niche market moving goods to the Gulf Coast, which the Santa Fe, by and large, was not involved in. Then, BN bought out the Frisco for what trackage they needed and sold off the rest.

While I don't know why this is so important to you, what I do know is that you said that nothing can convince you not have it happen. I feel like you want someone to write the particulars of that merger for you. That someone is not me. I'm really not interested in discussing it any further.

Oh, Waterproof, you are going to hate me...just hate me...but...

If Andrew is dead set on an AT&SF/SLSF merger, I can think of one way to-maybe-bring it about. If, as Andrew has started to do, Professor Ripley decides to revise the overall approach to grouping lines together, we have a couple of considerations:
1) Minimizing common ownership of parallel lines (to maintain competition), and
2) Combining financially weak roads with stronger ones
This could make a criteria for a general plan of consolidations that includes AT&SF+SLSF*.

Now, here's the rub. If you work back from this merger as a general criteria (connecting, not competing lines; smaller/weaker company combined with larger/stronger one), then you have to handle all the rest of your consolidation plan the same way. ERIE-DL&W still fits. I think that is going to put the kibosh to Burlington Northern (unless either the GN or-more likely-the NP is jettisoned). MILW+MP is kind of weak, here...there isn't enough strength in either one to help the other. Other things like splitting the RI between SP/UP is for way in the future (equivalent of 1970's otl) but that future is already butterflied.

*In my little hobby project (not developed for a TL) of how I think the Plan should have been done, I do have the AT&SF and SLSF in a common (but overall larger) system; basically for these reasons.
 
If Andrew is dead set on an AT&SF/SLSF merger, I can think of one way to-maybe-bring it about. If, as Andrew has started to do, Professor Ripley decides to revise the overall approach to grouping lines together, we have a couple of considerations:
1) Minimizing common ownership of parallel lines (to maintain competition), and
2) Combining financially weak roads with stronger ones
This could make a criteria for a general plan of consolidations that includes AT&SF+SLSF*.
That said, there are certain railroads I would still group together by virtue of shared ownership.

However, the case of BN would also be one where I'd have several concessions made first. Namely selling the C&S south of Pueblo to a railroad like the Rio Grande. which would honestly be more reason to give the SLSF to ATSF. Since BN wouldn't have much use for it after giving off the C&S's southern half.
 
Oh, Waterproof, you are going to hate me...just hate me...but...

I don't hate you at all!

That was a well thought out answer to a nigh-impossible question. It does, however, require significant nationalization efforts to make it possible. Could they be made to merge? Yes. Would they do do willingly? That, in my view, is a definite no.
 
*In my little hobby project (not developed for a TL) of how I think the Plan should have been done, I do have the AT&SF and SLSF in a common (but overall larger) system; basically for these reasons.
Indeed. If I do go through with coast-coast mergers in my revised TL (or even the one I have now), I could let you have your ideas put in to these systems.
 
I don't hate you at all!

That was a well thought out answer to a nigh-impossible question. It does, however, require significant nationalization efforts to make it possible. Could they be made to merge? Yes. Would they do do willingly? That, in my view, is a definite no.
True that-but I think the premise of any consolidation plan is that the companies would not have made the same mergers willingly to begin with, or else they would have already done so. The hump to get over with any proposed plan of consolidation, imo, is the mechanism to induce those mergers. A couple of ways (not in order of likelihood, or anything other than the order they occur to me) are:
1) The conditions for the end of federal control. If you want to spin this off the butterflies of a TR 3rd term TL, it might work. Post WWI was a reaction/rollback of much Progressive policy. If TR is still around, there could possibly be a clause returning control of the RR's to their owners only to newly formed (and, again, a federal charter may be the key here) corporations that will own/control the grouped lines pending a final merger. That final merger could be mandated to occur within, say five years, under terms reviewed by the ICC. You will probably need another clause giving the ICC power to singlehandedly set the terms if no agreement is reached by that time.
2) The industry was-not exactly starved-but in need of much capital after WWI and the markets were less friendly to RR stocks/bonds for much of the 1920's. RR revenues were down so returns were not as attractive to investors, especially with other industries (automobiles being one) offering new opportunities. Again, I cannot see any direct aid going to the RR's during otl's conservative Republican administrations (and Congress); nor would a progressive/Democratic administration/Congress. You have a couple of options here, though. There were proposals floating around for a revolving loan fund to be financed by collecting part of the dividends that were paid by stronger roads, over a certain limit.
This would be used to help finance borrowing by weaker roads. Again, only feasible if you have a stronger Progressive influence. If not, then-as I have mentioned before-the Hoover administration may offer some sort of loan program later in the 1920's. In either case, make these assistances available only to railroads that are consolidated under the Plan.
3) The Great Depression, and much more federally based help is available but only to Plan railroads.
4) if you can get one or two companies formed and operating, the rest may decide to come along, rather than be left out.

No guarantees, a few butterflies needed, many released...but not quite bat territory just yet, imo.

And, a disclaimer, as always-this is just about the initial set up, taking us to no later than 1942, when WWII puts everything into a cocked hat.
 
Last edited:
Indeed. If I do go through with coast-coast mergers in my revised TL (or even the one I have now), I could let you have your ideas put in to these systems.
I would be able to throw something together in a couple of weeks or so, depending on how you want it formatted (Just a list...with or without explanations? An atl minority report to the ICC?)
 
That said, there are certain railroads I would still group together by virtue of shared ownership.

However, the case of BN would also be one where I'd have several concessions made first. Namely selling the C&S south of Pueblo to a railroad like the Rio Grande. which would honestly be more reason to give the SLSF to ATSF. Since BN wouldn't have much use for it after giving off the C&S's southern half.
Keep in mind that the ICC was allowed to let RR's have ownership, and/or leases of oyher lines, as long as it didn't amount to, or was used as, control of the other.
 
I thought that sicne we didn't detail preservation too much, here are some PRR K4s I would like to add to the list of preserved ones:

- #5399: Operational out of Lima, OH
- #1120: Has streamlining restored and operational out of Strasburg, PA

I would be able to throw something together in a couple of weeks or so, depending on how you want it formatted (Just a list...with or without explanations? An atl minority report to the ICC?)
Sure!

Keep in mind that the ICC was allowed to let RR's have ownership, and/or leases of oyher lines, as long as it didn't amount to, or was used as, control of the other.
True. In this circumstance, I could see an agreement where the ATSF still gets the SLSF. But BN gets trackage rights over it in return.
 
@Kevin C. Smith

I can easily see PRR and N&W happening relatively early. Plus the Van Swerigens merge their lines eventually.
Keeping those two together under the otl ownership/influence/not direct control might not be too difficult, given the loophole in the Plan criteria. The Van's combination was basically a sound one, I think-though, depending on your criteria for considering mergers, you may have to settle for C&O+PM, and ERIE+NKP as separate mergers, at the outset. You may be able to keep DL&W in the latter...
 
I think I should put all the ideas for each section into one post here that I update with further ideas.

1918-1929
- With the fall of the USRA, the Coolidge Administration restricts the power of the ICC, and allows the railroads a much freer hand in setting rates and route planning- this allows much fat to be trimmed back when the railroads still maintain a dominant position.
- The Trona Shortline Railroad extends itself from Ridgecrest, CA to Las Vegas during the 1920s. Naturally, this short line attracts the interest of the Southern Pacific.
- Pacific Electric makes plans to grade separate itself from the roads. Which co-incides with Southern Pacific building from LA to San Diego via Long Beach.
- During the same time, the Pennsylvania sells off the line from Trinway to Cincinnati to the Nickel Plate. Allowing the latter to directly reach Cincinnati and the C&O.

1930-1941
- The Depression leads to a new wave of railroad constriction as part of the New Deal. Of particular note is a railroad created to serve Charleston, WV and Pittsburgh called the Pittsburgh Southern.
- The PRR builds a 4-8-4 called the R2 to replace/supplement the K4s on passenger service.
- The PRR expands its stake in the N&W in 1934. During which time the PRR conceives plans to integrate the PRR completely.
- The RF&P expands its line to a line with N&W at Petersburg.
- The Erie Lackawanna is formed earlier than OTL, with the locomotives generally following OTL's DL&W practice with Hudsons, Poconos, and later Berkshires. (This is just a possibility right now).
- Illinois Central and Central of Georgia make plans to merge once and for all.
- The Southern Pacific is allowed by California to build from Los Angeles to San Diego via Long Beach. Allowing for even more heated competition with Santa Fe.
- Santa Fe streamlines most 3460 Hudsons and 3765 Class Northerns as the famous "Blue Geese" fleet of passenger engines. Later, Santa Fe also streamlines several 4-6-2s, albeit instead to a design that incorporates the "War Bonnet".
 
Top