FEEDBACK

National Railroad Consolidation and the Van Sweringen Merger

September 12, 1924

Report Outline
National Railroad Consolidation and the Van Sweringen Merger
Railroad Consolidation in the Past
Advantages of Railroad Consolidation
Compulsory Consolidation
Appendix

National Railroad Consolidation and the Van Sweringen Merger

A distinct impetus has been given to the movement for general railroad consolidation, as contemplated in the Transportation Act of 1920 by the proposed Van Sweringen merger of the New York, Chicago & St. Louis, the Chesapeake & Ohie, the Hocking Valley, the Erie and the pere Marquette for unified operation. An actual corporate consolidation of these properties into one system cannot be undertaken until the Interstats Commerce Commission has promulgated its final consolidation plan for the grouping of all roads, but the Van Sweringen plan Will effect what amounts to a consolidation for all practical purposes, in advance of the Commission's final announcement.

The Van Sweringen merger is the first independent attempt at grouping railroads, hitherto unaffiliated, into a new system combining strong and weak lines to produce a structure of uniform strength, it is being undertaken under that section of the Transportation Act which authorizes the railroads, with the approval of the Interstate Commerce Commission, to acquire other carriers by lease, stock purchase or otherwise., but prohibits the consolidation for the time being of roads so acquired into a single system for ownership and operation, This partial relaxation of anti-monopoly Prohibitions was intended to bridge the gap between the passage of the Transportation Act and the publication of the Interstate Commerce Commission's final consolidation plan, by allowing hitherto affiliated railroads to come into closer relations, thus gaining some of the benefits of consolidation and making actual consolidation a less complex process when the time for it arrives.

Under this section various railroad companies have made application to acquire other compares with which they have establish-I relations, some of which have been approved by the Commission. How-ever, an application of the Boston and Hainebo acquire four small New England railroads, in which the word “consolidation” was used, was denied by the Commission.

ISSUE TRACKER for Related Reports
Railroads
May 01, 2009  High-Speed TrainsUpdated
Oct. 18, 2002  Future of Amtrak
Apr. 16, 1993  High-Speed Rail
Mar. 10, 1978  Future of American Railroads
Mar. 07, 1975  Railroad Reorganization
Jun. 20, 1973  Railroad Nationalization
Nov. 17, 1961  Railroad Subsidies
Aug. 24, 1960  Railroad Mergers
Jan. 01, 1958  Condition of the Railroads
Jan. 31, 1951  Railway Safety
Oct. 04, 1944  Railroad Freight Rates
Jun. 12, 1939  The Government and the Railroads
Apr. 21, 1938  Government Ownership of the Railroads
Dec. 07, 1937  Railroad Rates and Revenues
Jul. 17, 1937  Advances in Railway Passenger Service
Sep. 27, 1934  Railroad Rates And Federal Regulation of Transportation
Jan. 11, 1933  Railroad Receiverships and Reorganizations
Aug. 26, 1932  The Railroads and the Depression
Oct. 13, 1931  Wages of Railroad Labor
Jul. 09, 1931  Railroad Freight Rates
Feb. 14, 1931  The Railroad Consolidation Controversy
Sep. 19, 1927  The Problem of Railroad Valuation
Mar. 30, 1927  Railroad Consolidation and Prospective Legislation
Mar. 26, 1927  Principles of Railroad Consolidation
Mar. 08, 1926  Railway Labor Disputes Legislation
May 04, 1925  The Baltimore and Ohio Cooperation Plan
Sep. 12, 1924  National Railroad Consolidation and the Van Sweringen Merger
Aug. 14, 1924  Automatic Train Control in Relation to Railroad Casualties
May 28, 1924  The Condition of American Railroads
BROWSE RELATED TOPICS:
Antitrust and Monopolies
Railroads
FEEDBACK

Your Email Address

Subject

Provide Feedback

Suggest a topic here.

Type the characters you see below into the box

Take our survey to help us improve CQ Researcher!