an alternate modern US railroad industry

AH Challenge: Modernize the US railroad industry/network, beginning in the late 1960s or early 1970s without the massive consolidations that occurred in the OTL. In my scenario there would be no massive BNSF,UP
CSX or NS. You may have large systems but not four massive systems that dominate the nation. I would also like to have a continuation of the
profitable long distance passenger trains, like some of the names that continued under Amtrak. However, these train must be run by the RRs and
not a quasi government corporation.
When I say modernized I mean modern equipment, work rules, marketing
strategies and intermodal. I understand there will be some consolidation and the discontinuation of local and duplicate passenger services as well as duplicate facilities.
 
Well here's some of my AH RR fantasies:
1-PC survives as PC not CR. The Northeast rail disaster is absorbed by PC maybe with some government help. Duplicate lines and facilities are abandoned.
2-NE rail corridor continues under PC with some NY-FL and NY-WA-CH
long distance passenger trains.
3-Rationalized transcon passenger trains. CH-PacNorWest, CH-SF, CH-LA.
Maybe single trains instead of multiple trains to the same destination.
4-Consolidation of the "granger" roads. The strong survive IE:Burlington Route and C&NW.
5-NO giant NS. SR and N&W might merge, but they SR wouldn't gobble up every other shortline and small RRs IE CofG
I have other ideas but I save them for later.:D
 
1-PC survives as PC not CR. The Northeast rail disaster is absorbed by PC maybe with some government help. Duplicate lines and facilities are abandoned.
Hm, the best route here would seem to be stopping the New Haven from getting shoved into Penn Central... I mean, they were losing money anyway, but throwing in the black hole that was the NYNH&H would seem to make it totally non-viable... Of course, that begs the question what happens to the poor New Haven... honestly I can't see a solution other than nationalization in that case, the NH basically got hit by every single negative trend at once.

Are there any profitable long distance trains? I was under the impression that they were all loss-making, and still are, as far as I know the only thing that comes even close to profitability on the modern Amtrak is the Northeast Corridor.
 
The long distance passenger work in the US was dying and loosing buckets for money of anyone involved throughout the 1960s and 1970s. As companies divested themselves of this loss making, Amtrak was formed to try and keep it going.

As for PC, personally, I think the whole thing was a lame duck from the get go, and unless something or someone truely radical appeared, such as a Dr Beeching-esque as in the UK (in stature, not in form), then its inevitable that is going down the tubes due to its constituent parts (even without the NYNH&H) and the state of the economy over this time frame.

Maybe deregulation of the RR industry to make it more competitive could be brought forward? The 1980 Staggers Act from what I have read did make the industry more competitive and allowed for greater rationalization and reforms, so maybe if that was introduced earlier, the damage could be rectified much sooner?
 
Some long distance passenger service was successful. The area I know most about is the SE rail scene. The NYC to FL trains run by SAL/ACL/SCL were still moderately successful in the late 1960s. In 1969, after Pullman went under SCL formed a company called Hamburg Industries
of Augusta, GA. SCL sold all there sleepers to Hamburg, which became responsible for car maintenance, then leased the cars back to SCL. SCL then arranged for Hamburg to buy other used sleepers to meet SCL demand. SCL still had full NY-FL trains especially in the winter.
I wonder if some early deregulation as well as assistance could have helped some of the better long distance trains survive.
Maybe some government/industry nationwide plan might help.
 
Maybe deregulation of the RR industry to make it more competitive could be brought forward? The 1980 Staggers Act from what I have read did make the industry more competitive and allowed for greater rationalization and reforms, so maybe if that was introduced earlier, the damage could be rectified much sooner?
Deregulation would definitely be a help, I think, but the problem is, how do you get it? I mean, the failure of the Penn Central came as a shock from all reports I read... I don't think people really realized how bad the the state of the railroads, which had a reputation as being rich and making plenty of money, was until that happened. And even then, the failure of Penn Central came in 1970, it was still believed that private reorganization could work until finally Conrail was formed in 1976, and even then, it took four years of that until they finally gave up and deregulated the industry.
 
The keep the Rail roads you have to make them competitive with the Airline and Interstate Travel.
Perhaps during the debate over Eisenhower's National defense Highway Bill, a Amendment is put in to have a Government Agency [ie DOT] take over the Rail Ways.

This would allow the Rail companies to concentrate on Moving Passengers and Freight and not on Maintenance of the Rail Ways.
 
^ Problem with that is how do you determine who has what trackage rights? Part of the reason several lines were successful in modern times (Union Pacific in bulk trains, Conrail with intermodals/stack trains and Norfolk Southern with coal hauling) is because they have the best routes. The best route for freight, especially if they are major systems as most of the class 1 railroads were, will all go nationwide on the best routes, which would result in horrendous traffic problems, which is counterproductive to better service.

Conrail, to be frank, was a necessary evil. Penn Central getting forced to take over New Haven just accelerated running PC into the ground. There was way too many lines and companies and simply not enough traffic. When PC went broke, the loss of car fees to other rail lines sank Reading Lines and Lehigh Valley within months if not weeks. I can see one way to dodge Conrail being the market-owning behemoth it became.

As the system is being set up in the early 1970s, build TWO railways. Penn Central stays in business but is allowed to dramatically rationalize its network. Much of the New Haven becomes the Amtrak Northeast Corridor. Boston and Maine and the pre-Guilford Northeast lines are also put into Conrail. A second company starts around the NY-Chicago main of the Erie Lackawanna, absorbs much of Reading Lines and Lehigh Valley, as well as the Boston and Maine, Ann Arbor and some outside portions of Penn Central.

The result is that Conrail and Penn Central are direct rivals across New England, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan and Illinois. If you want to drive the big lines apeshit, bring Milwaukee Road into Conrail and Penn Central, and have its Pacfic Extension operated by both. Burlington Northern would hate that, but it would force them to compete as the Milwaukee Road route is the shortest of the major Pacific NW routes by some 90 miles. The lines would both be transcontinental in that scenario.

The West is easy to sort out, as most of those didn't suffer the problems that the East did. BNSF was a merger of convenience, not necessity - both were successful lines and had major market shares, the merger was just done to create a more seamless system, and to compete with Union Pacific, which was the big kid on the block in the West.

Southern Pacific's problems were largely self-made. They were infamous for poor service, arrogant management and unfathomable stupidity, particularly in the California market. When BNSF happened, SP's terrible past and their now-dead-as-a-dodo market dominance forced a merger. President Clinton, in perhaps the biggest and most flagrant violation of NAFTA, scuttled an attempt by Canadian Pacific to buy Southern Pacific - which is little known but was a serious piss-off for CP - to the point they never really focused on US growth after that. You'd have to have a major improvement in SP's customer service, particularly in the Southwest, if they want to survive long-term.
 
From what I remember from my old Co-op days with NS one of the big reasons for abandonment of passenger service was liability.

Perhaps if the Fed offers some sort of protection against massive lawsuits?
 
The only possible market for long distance rail travel in the US any time after WWII is as a "the journey is part of the adventure thing" "see the Roockies from our vista dome cars". That sort of thing. Now middle distance train travel is more of a regional thing. Given a train speed of say 160MPH out to around 400 miles or so it is faster to travel by rail than fly. I am talking door to door here. That makes certain regional rail systems possible (not profitable but practicle, after all they're infrastructure, maybe Federal Tax Credits?) Sure you have to rent a car or take a taxi when you get there but against flying it is a wash. But the best way to make train travel a viable transportation option in post WWII America is to eliminate cheap gas.
 
is to eliminate cheap gas.
How though? If some sort of domestic (or international) supply crisis occured in the 1940s/1950s instead of the 1970s, that would effect the move towards ending steam locomotive traction, as there is still plenty of coal, but if oil is not cheap, there is little want to change from steam locomotives, which means that services may not be as fast or operationally cheap (particuarly in labor costs).
 
One of the real troubles for the U.S. railroad industry was corruption between lawmakers and the airlines. For instance, in the late 80's, early 90's in Texas, Southwest was known to have bribed lawmakers to not support a bill for the creation of a high-speed rail corridor linking Houston-Dallas-San Antonio. I imagine that this sort of stuff also happened in the 60's and 70's. Without stuff like this, you might see a more European-esque railroad system in the densely populated areas of the U.S, Still though it's gonna be difficult to develop a system that's competitive with airlines, which can go just about anywhere.
 
Perhaps during the debate over Eisenhower's National defense Highway Bill, a Amendment is put in to have a Government Agency [ie DOT] take over the Rail Ways.
I doubt you'd get any USG to effectively nationalize, but what about a USG investment in track maintenance equivalent to $ to Interstates? In effect, keep rail & hwy on equal footing. Or get USG$ for double-tracking best routes?

Or, if you're willing to accept an earlier POD, how about in the Depression? Then, there's really no option but rail. Airlines are nascent & only for very rich, roads are terrible, & transcontinental highways are still a dream. Even Autobahnen don't exist yet. And there's economic pressure to aid railways...

Or, getting USG to repay railways for the extensive wear on cars & track due to movements of troops & equipment in WW2, which (IIRC) USG got essentially free....:eek:
 
Last edited:
Earlier mainstream environmentalism? That would negatively impact Car and aircraft use.

Perhaps massive investment in the railways during WW2 when they were the busiest ever.
 
One of the real troubles for the U.S. railroad industry was corruption between lawmakers and the airlines. For instance, in the late 80's, early 90's in Texas, Southwest was known to have bribed lawmakers to not support a bill for the creation of a high-speed rail corridor linking Houston-Dallas-San Antonio. I imagine that this sort of stuff also happened in the 60's and 70's. Without stuff like this, you might see a more European-esque railroad system in the densely populated areas of the U.S, Still though it's gonna be difficult to develop a system that's competitive with airlines, which can go just about anywhere.

Southwest will pay for that stunt, because now the lawmakers want to build that system again. America's HSR hopes right now are riding on California HSR being successful. if its a big flop, big problem for most other lines. If its moderately or very successful, it'll be the first of many. Private consortiums have proposed San Francisco-Seattle and Las Vegas-Los Angeles-Phoenix routes, as well as the Texas corridor.

America's huge spaces, particularly in the West, hinder HSR lines economically - planes are faster on longer trips. Though post-9/11, rail travel is having a renaissance, largely due to Amtrak doing a better job ('bout bloody time too - I rode the Coast Starlight so many times in the 00s, and the service quality was very uneven) and the fact that one doesn't need to pass through metal detectors to get onto planes and they aren't packed like sardines. I have never understood why Amtrak doesn't make their flagship long-distance trains (Coast Starlight, Empire Builder, Auto Train, Sunset Limited, et cetera) into rolling luxury liners and go for comfort over speed.

Upgrading railways in the 1930s was impossible because of political reasons. The big railways at the time were unbreakable monopolisitic behemoths, giant companies which were seen as indestructible. WWII and its immediate aftermath however would have been a great time to do it, as the railways in effect barely made it through WWII. I agree on the timing - reform the National Defense Highway Bill to include a comprehensive rebuild of American transport infrastructure - including railways, airports and shipyards. Better infrastructure would help not lose much of the freight to the trucks as what happened in the 1960s and 1970s.

Dieselization was an economic necessity. Steam locomotives are tough things to maintain, require far more frequent maintenance and far greater manpower than diesel locomotives. Diesel engines dramatically dropped costs for most mainline railways. The biggest problem here though was that even for behemoths like Union Pacific, their first-generation diesels served into the 1970s and 1980s, which isn't good for maintenance reasons.
 
1-PC survives as PC not CR. The Northeast rail disaster is absorbed by PC maybe with some government help. Duplicate lines and facilities are abandoned.

Already mentioned that.

2-NE rail corridor continues under PC with some NY-FL and NY-WA-CH long distance passenger trains.

Penn Central wanted rid of the passenger trains. That was obvious early on. They had made repeated new equipment purchases, but far more needed to be done, that much was obvious. PC's fleet of attractive and bombproof GG1s were however definitely showing their age. They looked terrible in PC's plain black, too. (Hell, most of PC's rolling stock looked like sh*t.) The electrical infrastructure needed work badly, and PC wasn't going to spend the money. And with freight still on the NEC, an accident like the Colonial at Baltimore in January 1987 was a matter of time.

3-Rationalized transcon passenger trains. CH-PacNorWest, CH-SF, CH-LA. Maybe single trains instead of multiple trains to the same destination.

Which Amtrak did anyways. The freight railways went to ridiculous lengths to try and get rid of passenger trains - anybody else remember the single car trains? Amtrak was a neccessity, it's that simple.

4-Consolidation of the "granger" roads. The strong survive IE:Burlington Route and C&NW.

Again, that happened anyways. ICG would up effectively being a Chicago-New Orleans main line and not much else. Rock Island and Milwaukee Road eventually went belly-up, C&NW was swallowed whole by Union Pacific, Soo Line got swallowed by Canadian Pacific. The "strong" here would be C&NW and perhaps Rock Island. Burlington was always jointly owned by Great Northern and Northern Pacific, which meant, like Spokane, Portland and Seattle, that when GN and NP merged they would be absorbed too. ICG would make sense to sell to an outside line who wanted a southbound route.
 
You would need too many POD's in the fifties. Petroleum technology must be weakened, so more rail lines go electric.

How about a non-stopping train? Here is how it works. A 20-car train speeds eastward through Kansas, each car with its own electric motor. One car decouples from the rear of the train for local service to Topeka and other communities in eastern Kansas. As the train approaches Kansas City, it breaks into three sections: some cars continue northeast to Chicago, without stopping, others straight east to St. Louis. The nonstop cars join additional cars that had already left the station, connecting while in motion. Remaining cars stop in Kansas City for reboarding and eventual rejoining to trains departing later.
 
Top