Re: (erielack) Railroads "That Should Never Have Been Built

[William Shultz <wshultz1_@_twcny.rr.com>]

I give it a 55% myself. It's a song, but it doesn't have a very good 
beat to dance to. Sorry, you need to have grown up with American 
Bandstand to get the reference. More succinctly, it reads as a rather 
pollyannic, romanticized view of the realities of the times. Smith and 
Weber would no doubt approve.

The fact is free market capitalism didn't build the Erie Canal, the 
State of New York and its taxpayers did. Whether it was wise to 
undertake the costly enlargement project of the early 20th century had 
less to do with economic need and necessity than with corruption, 
kickbacks and graft. It benefited a few at the expense of many (New York 
State taxpayers). We do have a real nice waterway for recreational use 
for the $110 million 1903 dollars spent to build the Barge Canal though.

Should the NY&OM have been built? I agree it is irrelevant since it was 
built.  Being an O&W enthusiast I am certainly thankful it was, but from 
a historical economic standpoint the world probably wouldn't have 
blinked if it hadn't. It was doomed from the start in the very way it 
was financed and routed. There too was capitalism at its finest, town 
bonding. Certain legislators were from most accounts handsomely rewarded 
for getting that gem of legislation passed.

D.C. Littlejohn had a vision, but it was a flawed vision, just as was 
the Erie's visionaries in believing Dunkirk would become the prominent 
port on the eastern end of Lake Erie, we all know how that scenario 
played out. Had it not been for the rise of anthracite and the O&W 
building the Scranton Division to tap into the wealth, the railroad's 
future would have been much different indeed. As the saying goes, the 
Midland never met a hill it didn't like.

Milk might have been profitable, but it wouldn't have sustained the 
railroad, anthracite did. As it was, if the railroad had abandoned the 
mainline north of Cadosia, it probably would have been better off 
regardless of my personal feelings as an enthusiast. The northern 
section of the railroad barely broke even at best after the turn of the 
20th century and after the collapse of northward anthracite shipments to 
the docks at Oswego there was even less reason to keep the northern 
half. Try as they might, Oswego was never going to be the major lake 
port it was so long hoped to become. Also every town of any importance 
the O&W served was also served by a stronger competitor or competitors.

Certainly the NY&OM wasn't alone. Many railroads of the latter half of 
the 1800's were built for dubious or unsound reasons. Many were built 
simply as offensive or defensive tools in the expansionist wars of the 
1870's and 1880's. They were used to apply pressure on competing lines, 
built as takeover tools, used to block other railroads from expanding 
into a territory of another railroad and for dreams of empire or 
speculation. Yes they were built to serve a need, several needs 
actually, greed, ambition and speculation to name a few. During the time 
of greatest expansion there were as many of the types of Vanderbilt, 
Gould, Fisk, Drew and Huntington as there were of the type of Hill, 
Taylor or Harriman. The railroads were simply the Internet of their day 
with a whole lot less regulation and oversight of the machinations.

Even the milk business, the O&W wasn't the first to carry milk. It did 
add notably to the technology and technique of handling it, but it was 
going to happen regardless. All of its neighboring and competing 
railroads were handling milk as well. Almost all of the territory served 
was as previously mentioned, served by other lines, places like Apex, 
Fishs Eddy, Roscoe, Napanoch, Wurtsboro, Liberty, etc., not 
withstanding. If it had never been built, the geographic area it served 
exclusively would I suspect probably look about as it does today.

Should the DL&W or Lehigh Valley have built west to Buffalo? Both did so 
on a solid financial footing and they thought it desirable at the time. 
The Lehigh Valley did it largely to free itself from dependence on the 
Erie to reach Buffalo and its already established properties there and 
the DL&W in part to appease Gould, partly because there was a market for 
anthracite and partly because the DL&W had ambitions to expand west. 
Would the DL&W have done it without Gould egging it on to complete his 
transcontinental empire ambitions? One can only wonder since it was done.

Rail system rationalization isn't a recent concept, it was known at the 
time the expansion wars were happening by many of the players involved 
it wasn't sustainable, but no one wanted to stop for fear of loosing 
advantage. Certainly by 1920 it was well understood there were too many 
railroads and not enough traffic to sustain them profitably hence the 
inclusion of the (unfulfilled) consolidation proviso in the 
Transportation Act of 1920. I have a two inch thick folder of original 
consolidation plan maps from the 1920's showing the different system 
proposals. The Van Sweringens nearly accomplished what the ICC was so 
reticent to do with their 5th eastern system plan outside of Professor 
Ripley's original four eastern systems. Almost everyone at the time 
agreed the rail network wasn't profitably sustainable in its then 
current form, consolidation and rationalization were inevitable.

Did the O&W and similar railroads benefit the public good? Many did so 
only as a secondary consideration not as a primary purpose. Certainly on 
the personal level they were of benefit to the communities they served 
and after they became institutionalized regardless of the reason they 
were built, they played a major role in the area over which they had a 
sphere of influence. Some areas surely wouldn't have developed as 
quickly as they did, some would have hardly noticed the absence.

With the perspective of an enthusiast it is easy to have a myopic, 
romantic view of railroading's past. With a historian's perspective you 
realize what a nasty, messy business this time of railroad expansion 
was. Many died building the lines and more were maimed or killed 
operating them and there was seemingly little regard of these 
consequences on the part of the Boards or major securities holders far 
removed from the daily operation of the railroads. Financial panics 
fueled by speculative practices were a part of the landscape which 
ruined many a fortune but which also had a devastating effect on the 
"common" people and their communities. Hmm, things haven't changed much 
come to think of it.

Even understanding this rather stark view of the reality of the time, it 
doesn't diminish the accomplishments of the period which will almost 
surely never be repeated. In fact the more I learn about the people who 
built, worked for and actually ran the railroads, the more respect I 
have for them. What they managed to achieve in large part by brute 
force, common sense, cunning and determination is still an inspiration.

Yes the railroads were built and existed with a "very complex relation 
of the entity to its environment" but the historical context in which 
the entity came into existence cannot be overlooked either. Even the 
industry the anthracite carriers served tends to be romanticized by the 
enthusiast. Anthracite mining was a dirty, dangerous, often brutal 
business. One only need research the doings of major mine owners (the 
railroads themselves at the time) and their oft times deadly strong arm 
tactics. To read about or to view pictures of the miners, their families 
and the environment in which they lived makes many a third world country 
seem down right hospitable. Yet we as enthusiasts ignore these 
realities, as historians we cannot. Again it inspires what incredible 
determination these several generations had. They built this country on 
literally their blood, sweat and tears. My generation couldn't do it.

My apology for rambling on so, if all one cares about is when this 
locomotive was scrapped, when a signal was taken out of service or in 
what year did a paint scheme first appear this means nothing. If you 
want to understand the history, you need to understand the context. 
Sometimes the history isn't very pretty, but it happened, the context 
helps put it in perspective. What it also does is give you a deep 
appreciation and indeed admiration for what the people who really made a 
railroad what it was accomplished. In their own way this applies right 
up to the people who made the EL what was, not just the Erie and DL&W. 
Oh and yes, the people who made the O&W what it was also.

Since the sources are many I will refrain. If anyone does want 
references contact me off list.

Regards,

Will Shultz


Tim Stuy wrote:
> Rusty,
> 
> I agree 98% of the time.  There are a few examples that I can think of
> that really fit into the "never should have been built".  The Rockaway
> Valley comes to mind.
> 
> Tim
> 
> On 8/12/06, Richard Recordon <recordor_@_comcast.net> wrote:
>> Whenever I hear a reference to something that "Never should have been 
>> built" made by a contemporary in the late 20th-early 21st century I 
>> kind of have to chuckle. After all that is an obituary remark, not a 
>> remark from the time of the planning and building. It is also ignores 
>> the entire complex relationship of the entity to its environment.
>>

	The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
	Sponsored by the ELH&TS
	http://www.elhts.org

------------------------------

End of EL Mail List Digest V3 #2106
***********************************