Every railfan has his own version of Esch-Cummins/Ripley/ICC final plan of 1929

Joe Bonkers

Here's mine:

1. New England Railway:
-Boston & Maine
-New York, New Haven & Hartford
-Maine Central
-Bangor & Aroostook
-Delaware & Hudson
-All 2-foot-gauge lines in Maine combined as a single wholly-owned subsidiary

2, New York Central
-Existing NYC
-New York, Ontario & Western
-Rutland
-Virginian
-Chicago, Attica & Southern

3. Pennsylvania
-Existing PRR
-Long Island RR
-Norfolk & Western
-Detroit, Toledo & Ironton
-East Broad Top (wholly-owned subsidiary)

4. Baltimore & Ohio
-Existing B&O
-Lehigh & New England
-Central Railroad of New Jersey
-Reading
-Buffalo & Susquehanna
-Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh
-Chicago & Alton

5. Chesapeake & Ohio
-Existing C&O
-Lehigh & Hudson River
-Detroit & Toledo Shore Line
-Hocking Valley
-Pere Marquette
-Wabash
-Lehigh Valley
-Ann Arbor

6. Erie Lackawanna
-Erie
-Delaware, Lackawanna & Western
-New York, Chicago & St. Louis (Nickel Plate Road)
-Bessemer & Lake Erie
-Chicago & Illinois Midland
-Wheeling & Lake Erie
-Pittsburgh & West Virginia
-Western Maryland
-Akron, Canton & Youngstown
-Toledo, Peoria & Western

7. Louisville & Nashville/Atlantic Coast Line (I don't have a name for this system that I like)
-ACL
-L&N
-Winston-Salem Southbound
-Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis
-Clinchfield
-Atlanta, Birmingham & Coast
-Gulf, Mobile & Northern
-Chicago & Eastern Illinois (SP to have trackage rights into Chicago)

8. Southern
-Existing SR
-Seaboard Air Line (I'm not crazy about this, but i can't fit SAL with anyone else)
-Monon
-Tennessee Central
-Florida East Coast
-East Tennessee & Western North Carolina (wholly-owned subsidiary)

9. Illinois Central
-Existing IC
-Central of Georgia
-Minneapolis & St. Louis
-Atlanta & St. Andrews Bay
-St. Louis-San Francisco (Santa Fe to have trackage rights into St. Louis)

10, Chicago & North Western
-Existing C&NW
-Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific
-Litchfield & Madison
-Mobile & Ohio
-Columbus & Greenville
-Lake Superior & Ishpeming
-Escanaba & Lake Superior
-Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range
-Trackage rights on SP&S into Portland

11. Great Northern
-Existing GN
-Butte, Anaconda & Pacific
-Half-ownership of Spokane, Portland & Seattle
-C&NW must sell, and GN must buy, either the C&NW or CMStP&P line from the Twin Cities to Chicago

12. Burlington Northern
-Northern Pacific
-Chicago, Burlington & Quincy
-The other 50 percent ownership of SP&S
-Fort Worth & Denver
-Green Bay & Western
-Trinity & Brazos Valley
-Oklahoma City-Ada-Atoka

13. Union Pacific
-Existing UP
-Chicago Great Western
-Missouri-Kansas-Texas
-Minneapolis, Northfield & Southern

14. Southern Pacific
-Existing SP
-Kansas City Southern
-St. Louis Southwestern

15. Santa Fe
-Existing ATSF
-Kansas City, Mexico & Orient
-Missouri & North Arkansas
-Midland Valley

16. Rock Island Western
-Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific
-Missouri Pacific
-Texas & Pacific
-Kansas, Oklahoma & Gulf
-Denver & Rio Grande Western
-Denver & Salt Lake
-Western Pacific
-Fort Smith & Western
-Alabama, Tennessee & Northern
-Louisiana & Arkansas
-Rio Grande Southern (combined with D&RGW narrow-gauge lines as a wholly-owned subsidiary)
-RIW must sell, and SP must buy, the former Rock Island Kansas City - Tucumcari, N.M. line

17, Canadian National
-Existing CN
-Grand Trunk
-Grand Trunk Western
-Central Vermont
-Duluth, Winnipeg & Pacific

18. Canadian Pacific
-Existing CP
-Soo Line
-Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic
-Mineral Range
-Spokane International

-Terminal roads to be created/enhanced as needed for cities served by multiple companies (to create all-access and allow for consolidation of passenger and freight terminals)

-Interurbans and streetcar/trolley systems to be purchased by states or municipalities as appropriate

-Other shortlines to have the right to petition for inclusion with connecting larger systems if desired

Subsequent developments:
-When the Roosevelt administration comes into office, the mergers are combined with a massive rebuild/modernization of the entire U.S. railroad system as a New Deal measure. As a result, many cities see improvements such as grade-separation projects and attractive new Art Deco-style passenger stations. (This later sharply curtails the freeway system, as neither the federal government nor most state governments are enthusiastic about shelling out another big outlay of cash after having just paid for a big railroad modernization program. The freeway system consists mostly of toll highways, run by individual states ((Pennsylvania Turnpike, New York State Thruway, New Jersey Turnpike, etc.)) with usually only one main route per state.)
-The government pledges under New Deal legislation to create a permanent fund for capital improvements and maintenance for the railroads. Railroads also receive some measure of protective legislation against intermodal competition (trucks, air, etc.).
-In return for this, the railroads must provide freight service under common-carrier rules (i.e., available to all comers) as well as passenger service to all communities greater than 10,000 population. However, this service can be structured according to the railroads' best practices (no requests to the ICC necessary to cancel/change a particular train).
-If a line is to be abandoned, ownership reverts to the federal government for a five-year period, during which time the federal government has the right to attempt to find an alternate operator for the line before final abandonment.
-General deregulation in terms of rate-making is coupled with legislation that protects labor but also gives the railroads the ability to move workers from one craft to another as needed.
 
Last edited:

Joe Bonkers

So, to clarify a little what I think this consolidation would have accomplished, had it taken place in the 1930s:

1. If you look closely, there are seven Eastern trunk lines from the Atlantic to the Mississippi (PRR, NYC, B&O, C&O, EL, ACL/L&N, and Southern) balanced by seven Western trunk lines from the Mississippi to the Pacific (GN, BN, C&NW, UP, Rock Island Western, SP, and Santa Fe). Therefore, if at some future date they decide to merge to create true transcontinentals, everyone has a dance partner.

2. All of the Eastern and Western trunk lines serve both the Chicago and St. Louis gateways, and the more "southerly" ones serve New Orleans and Memphis too.

3. All of the Western lines have at least one dedicated mainline to the Pacific Coast.

4. Of the five railroads serving the Northeastern states, four have direct connections to the New England Railway for traffic to/from that corner of the country: the C&O, B&O, and EL at Maybrook, New York; the EL also at Binghamton, New York; and the PRR at Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. The fifth, the NYC, of course owns the Boston & Albany and therefore already has a route into New England.

5. I forgot completely about the Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac, but i think it can still remain independent as it would serve as a bridge between the PRR, B&O, and C&O on the north end and the Southern and ACL/L&N on the south end.
 

Joe Bonkers

The BA&P was a shortline that used to exist in Montana and carried copper from mines at Butte to smelters at Anaconda. It mostly shut down when the smelters closed; the remainder is called the Rarus Railway.

The Skeena & Yukon, if built, would probably have ended up with either CN or CP (probably the former). Which might also make for an interesting alternate history for the White Pass & Yukon out of Skagway, Alaska.

By the way, two more features I forgot to mention:

1, All of the Eastern trunk lines serve the Pocahontas bituminous coal fields of the MD/WV/KY/southern Ohio/eastern Tennessee region. The C&O, B&O, Southern, and ACL/L&N are already there; the PRR gets in through ownership of the N&W; the NYC through ownership of the Virginian; the EL through ownership of the Western Maryland and the other "alphabet route" lines.

2. All five of the Northeastern roads serve the anthracite coal region of northeastern Pennsylvania. The EL and PRR are already there; the C&O gets in through ownership of the Lehigh Valley; the B&O through ownership of the CNJ and Reading; and the NYC through ownership of the NYO&W.
 

Joe Bonkers

You do your best to be comprehensive, and still you forget things.

The Nickel Plate Road (New York, Chicago & St. Louis); I'll put them with Erie Lackawanna (that's how EL gets into St. Louis).
 
Shortline614

Shortline614

My railroad history knowledge is very limited pre-1960s. I find railroad history post-1960 to modern-day much more interesting, so I don't actually know much about the 1929 plan. I don't really have any big problems with your version of the plan. I like the idea of having balance between the eastern and western roads. Here is what I would change:

Southern Pacific should get trackage rights from Kansas City to St. Louis over the Rock Island Western, rights they got historically during the "Mop-Up" merger of 1982. SP could then send Chicago and St. Louis originated traffic via the Golden State Route.

Merging the Mobile & Ohio and Columbus & Greenville into the Chicago & North Western I find rather strange. Both railroads were historically connected to the Southen. Before the C&G was formed in the early 1920s, it was the Southern Railway of Mississippi, which prior to 1917, was operated by the Mobile & Ohio. The Southern leased out the operation of it's Mississippi subsidiary in hopes it would allow themselves to acquire the Mobile & Ohio at a later date. I do understand why you did it though. The CN&W is designed to compete with the IC for traffic from the Upper Midwest to the Gulf. It also gives the C&NW more interchange options with the Southern Roads.

I would also give the Rock Island Western's Memphis-Amarillo line to the Santa Fe. It doesn't really fit all that well within the RIW's system, since it's an east-west line in a primarily north-south railroad. It also gives the ATSF a second direct interchange point with the Southern Roads in Memphis, while also allowing them to compete better with SP.

The old Central Pacific from Odgen to Sacramento should be given to the Union Pacific, a joint UP-SP terminal railroad should be set up in Sacramento and the Bay Aera. I would do this because SP would have no reason to cooperate with UP when they are in direct competition with each other for Mississippi River to California traffic.

The ACL/L&N should also get the SAL's line from Chattahoochee to Baldwin, then trackage rights from there to Jacksonville. The Southern would have no incentive to cooperate with the ACL/L&N on this route when they are in direct competition.

I would also make the Western Maryland a joint railroad between the Erie Lackawanna and the B&O.

Just some ideas!
 

Joe Bonkers

These are interesting ideas.

I particularly like the idea of Santa Fe getting the Rock Island's Memphis-Amarillo line to give them access to the Memphis gateway.

I would still give the SP trackage rights to the Bay Area over the old Central Pacific in your scheme.

I think giving the WM to the EL but giving the B&O trackage rights would take care of what you probably have in mind for that line. Since the B&O is getting the CNJ and Reading in addition to the BR&P, about 50 miles of new construction between Williamsport and Sinnemahoning, Pennsylvania, would actually give the B&O an east-west route across north-central Pennsylvania that would alleviate some pressure on the Sand Patch grade line. (It would go CNJ from the New York area to Allentown, Pa.; RDG to Williamsport via Reading, Pa.; new construction to Sinnemahoning; then onto the BR&P and B&S to rejoin the old main line in Pittsburgh.)

I also like the ACL/L&N getting the SAL route that you suggest.

I thought the SP getting the Cotton Belt gets them into St. Louis, but I might be wrong about that.
 
Shortline614

Shortline614

Joe Bonkers said:
These are interesting ideas.

I particularly like the idea of Santa Fe getting the Rock Island's Memphis-Amarillo line to give them access to the Memphis gateway.

I would still give the UP trackage rights to the Bay Area over the old Central Pacific in your scheme.

I think giving the WM to the EL but giving the B&O trackage rights would take care of what you probably have in mind for that line. Since the B&O is getting the CNJ and Reading in addition to the BR&P, about 50 miles of new construction between Williamsport and Sinnemahoning, Pennsylvania, would actually give the B&O an east-west route across north-central Pennsylvania that would alleviate some pressure on the Sand Patch grade line. (It would go CNJ from the New York area to Allentown, Pa.; RDG to Williamsport via Reading, Pa.; new construction to Sinnemahoning; then onto the BR&P and B&S to rejoin the old main line in Pittsburgh.)

I also like the ACL/L&N getting the SAL route that you suggest.

I thought the SP getting the Cotton Belt gets them into St. Louis, but I might be wrong about that.
Click to expand...

The Cotton Belt does get the Southern Pacific to St. Louis. By giving SP trackage rights over that line, it gives SP more options to route traffic from California to St. Louis. You don't have to send everything up the Cotton Belt. You can now split the traffic 50/50 between the Cotton Belt and the Golden State Route.

Having trackage rights over the WM between Cherry Run, WV and Shippensburg makes sense. I'd prefer trackage rights over this route. I would do this because the B&O Washington County Branch to Hagerstown wasn't very good. I have to drive through that area often and it's VERY hilly.

Having the UP getting trackage rights over the old Central Pacific over Donner Pass is fine, but SP will be maintaining an expensive route that they won't use often. Donner Pass experienced a slow decline after the UP purchase of the WP in 1982. One of the main reasons UP bought WP was to get into the Bay Aera over their own route, and become no longer reliant on the SP, their primary competitor. What kept Donner alive post-1982 was the connection with the Rio Grande, which will be apart of a competing road in your timeline. Of course, after the DRGW-SP merger in 1988, Donner experienced a revival in the early 90s with SP's (rather stupid in my opinion) "Central Corridor" and the UP buyout in the late 90s. UP prefers Donner over the old WP despite the old WP being better engineered.
 

Joe Bonkers

I think you misunderstood me; I agree with you that UP should assume ownership of the Donner Pass line, I just think the SP should retain trackage rights (whether or not they use them is their business). I can also see the SP wanting the secondary access into Chicago; my scheme gives the NKP to the EL, and they technically speaking don't need another route between Buffalo and Chicago, but now the EL has some options for routing traffic.

The B&O as I understand it wanted the WM for better gradients in the region in general, so I'm sure they'd insist on the trackage rights. I like the idea of the EL getting it, though, because that gives them access to the Pocahontas coal region and enhances competition in the region as well.

By the way, on another topic, I picked the name "Rock Island Western" because I wanted above all to preserve the Rock Island name; after all, it has a folk song written about it ("the Rock Island line is a mighy fine line"). The "Western" is a nod to the WP as well as the D&RGW, the latter honored as well by keeping the RGS name for the narrow-gauge subsidiary. Unfortunately the MoPac loses its identity, but maybe the passenger train fleet could use the name series "[blank] Eagle," since I never cared for the name "Rocket." Thus the California Zephyr in TTL would be called the California Eagle instead. I briefly thought of using the name "Rock Island Pacific" until I realized that the reporting marks would then be "RIP."
 
Shortline614

Shortline614

Joe Bonkers said:
I think you misunderstood me; I agree with you that UP should assume ownership of the Donner Pass line, I just think the SP should retain trackage rights (whether or not they use them is their business). I can also see the SP wanting the secondary access into Chicago; my scheme gives the NKP to the EL, and they technically speaking don't need another route between Buffalo and Chicago, but now the EL has some options for routing traffic.

The B&O as I understand it wanted the WM for better gradients in the region in general, so I'm sure they'd insist on the trackage rights. I like the idea of the EL getting it, though, because that gives them access to the Pocahontas coal region and enhances competition in the region as well.

By the way, on another topic, I picked the name "Rock Island Western" because I wanted above all to preserve the Rock Island name; after all, it has a folk song written about it ("the Rock Island line is a mighy fine line"). The "Western" is a nod to the WP as well as the D&RGW, the latter honored as well by keeping the RGS name for the narrow-gauge subsidiary. Unfortunately the MoPac loses its identity, but maybe the passenger train fleet could use the name series "[blank] Eagle," since I never cared for the name "Rocket." Thus the California Zephyr in TTL would be called the California Eagle instead. I briefly thought of using the name "Rock Island Pacific" until I realized that the reporting marks would then be "RIP."
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. SP keeping trackage rights is fine, even if they don't use them. BNSF has trackage rights over the Sunset Route from El Paso to Kansas City that they got as apart of the UP purchase of SP, but they don't use them.

The Rock Island Western name is fine, although the name Rock Island Pacific with the reporting marks RIP, I do find funny. Although considering the Rock Island is back in the form of a Northwestern Mississippi shortline, I guess it's not so dead after all. https://rockislandrail.com/ You could just keep the name Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific, finally putting Pacific in the name of that railroad, but Rock Island Western is also a fine name.

Passenger Trains is not my expertise, so I don't know how I'll be able to help on that front.
 
Duke Andrew of Dank

Duke Andrew of Dank

@Joe Bonkers

The NKP and EL going together was something I thought of doing in my own rail TL a while before I saw this. Conversely, the PRR+N&W is something I also envisioned for a long while.
Joe Bonkers said:
4. Baltimore & Ohio
-Existing B&O
-Lehigh & New England
-Central Railroad of New Jersey
-Reading
-Buffalo & Susquehanna
-Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh
-Chicago & Alton
Click to expand...
I would recommend trying to find a way to link the B&O with the Reading more directly. Possibly have the B&O buy up or build its own line from Cumberland to Harrisburg to meet the Reading. Or buy up that on WM branch from Hagerstown to Shippensburg.
 
Duke Andrew of Dank

Duke Andrew of Dank

Joe Bonkers said:
16. Rock Island Western
-Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific
-Missouri Pacific
-Texas & Pacific
-Kansas, Oklahoma & Gulf
-Denver & Rio Grande Western
-Denver & Salt Lake
-Western Pacific
-Fort Smith & Western
-Alabama, Tennessee & Northern
-Louisiana & Arkansas
-Rio Grande Southern (combined with D&RGW narrow-gauge lines as a wholly-owned subsidiary)
-RIW must sell, and SP must buy, the former Rock Island Kansas City - Tucumcari, N.M. line
Click to expand...
I feel the L&A is a bit too parallel to the T&P ITTL. Though I'll personally admit there may be some trouble finding a different operator.
 

isayyo2

Shortline614 said:
My railroad history knowledge is very limited pre-1960s. I find railroad history post-1960 to modern-day much more interesting, so I don't actually know much about the 1929 plan. I don't really have any big problems with your version of the plan. I like the idea of having balance between the eastern and western roads. Here is what I would change:

Southern Pacific should get trackage rights from Kansas City to St. Louis over the Rock Island Western, rights they got historically during the "Mop-Up" merger of 1982. SP could then send Chicago and St. Louis originated traffic via the Golden State Route.

Merging the Mobile & Ohio and Columbus & Greenville into the Chicago & North Western I find rather strange. Both railroads were historically connected to the Southen. Before the C&G was formed in the early 1920s, it was the Southern Railway of Mississippi, which prior to 1917, was operated by the Mobile & Ohio. The Southern leased out the operation of it's Mississippi subsidiary in hopes it would allow themselves to acquire the Mobile & Ohio at a later date. I do understand why you did it though. The CN&W is designed to compete with the IC for traffic from the Upper Midwest to the Gulf. It also gives the C&NW more interchange options with the Southern Roads.

I would also give the Rock Island Western's Memphis-Amarillo line to the Santa Fe. It doesn't really fit all that well within the RIW's system, since it's an east-west line in a primarily north-south railroad. It also gives the ATSF a second direct interchange point with the Southern Roads in Memphis, while also allowing them to compete better with SP.

The old Central Pacific from Odgen to Sacramento should be given to the Union Pacific, a joint UP-SP terminal railroad should be set up in Sacramento and the Bay Aera. I would do this because SP would have no reason to cooperate with UP when they are in direct competition with each other for Mississippi River to California traffic.

The ACL/L&N should also get the SAL's line from Chattahoochee to Baldwin, then trackage rights from there to Jacksonville. The Southern would have no incentive to cooperate with the ACL/L&N on this route when they are in direct competition.

I would also make the Western Maryland a joint railroad between the Erie Lackawanna and the B&O.

Just some ideas!
Click to expand...
To my knowledge, the SP and UP would share all facilities and track of the CP equally. Now how they operated on the route would certainly be up for discussion, would the UP and SP compete for customers on the same piece of track? In my discussions with Boyd oh so many years ago, I recommended that the CP be run semi-independently much like the North Western Pacific. That being said, it is hard to judge where the CP started and where the SP ended... I believe it's the original transcontinental route ending on the Oakland Mole with branches throughout the Central Valley. I'd also love to see the Western Pacific push down the valley even further + their potential route on the SF peninsula and purchase of the Ocean Shore Railroad.

Edit: Here's a map of Northern California Railroad's showing distinct CP and SP lines Poor's 1893 map
 
Last edited:

Joe Bonkers

Andrew Boyd said:
@Joe Bonkers

The NKP and EL going together was something I thought of doing in my own rail TL a while before I saw this. Conversely, the PRR+N&W is something I also envisioned for a long while.

I would recommend trying to find a way to link the B&O with the Reading more directly. Possibly have the B&O buy up or build its own line from Cumberland to Harrisburg to meet the Reading. Or buy up that on WM branch from Hagerstown to Shippensburg.
Click to expand...

Probably have the B&O buy the WM branch; the EL doesn't really need it, since the north end doesn't connect with the EL system anywhere.
 
Duke Andrew of Dank

Duke Andrew of Dank

Joe Bonkers said:
Probably have the B&O buy the WM branch; the EL doesn't really need it, since the north end doesn't connect with the EL system anywhere.
Click to expand...
That was also something I had thought of before finding the thread.

Also, I had thought of the ATSF getting the SLSF in my version of EC, but I decided to instead butterfly them losing the Frisco in my rail TL remake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top