Using the Burlington Northern merger of March 1970 as an example.This merger was touted as a savings from duplicate facilities,redundant trackage,etc.However,look at the freight car fleets of the predecessors at the time of the merger and the interchange rules in place at that time.The Great Northern had 20,000 box cars in their fleet,of which roughly half were beyond the age for interchange service and were pretty much restricted to home rails.The GN had programs in the late 1960’s to rebuild many of these cars to comply with the new rules,but these programs ended with the BN merger because the older freight cars were able to travel further on the home rails of the new system without the restrictions of the interchange rules.Quite a loophole considering it tripled or quadrupled the mileages that 40-,50-,or even 60 year old equipment could travel.
Yes it is,but read what’s behind the objective.Sure redundant track was abandoned,yards and servicing facilities were consolidated.But the age of the freight car fleets were also a big factor.BN was able to use the available cars for another 10 to 15 years,without modification or replacement,on it’s own rails without violating the interchange rules.They were able to wait until the economic downturn of the 1980’s before any mass retirements of cars built in the late 20’s,30’s,and 40’s.
Are you saying, that railroads spend big bucks to merge, simply to save a smaller amount on new equipment? I’m not sure I get it. Isn’t the real reason, to survive in a competitive business?
Don’t think that the equipment age issue was a consideration in the BN merger planning. The first regulation (no freight car underframes over 50 years old) restricting interchange by age didn’t start until 1970, according to my reference material.
The BN merger (modern version) was approved by the railroad’s board of directors in 1960 and after much delay was to take place 5-10-68. The merger was then blocked by Dept. of Justice and after a favorable Supreme Court ruling the merger was finally consummated 3-2-70. Since there was no age regulation at the time of the initial merger planning it probably seems not to have been a consideration.
The cars the GN rebuilt in the 1960’s were composite side cars from the late 1930’s and the 1940’s (GN had lots of these instead of all steel cars out of consideration for on-line lumber producers). At the time of rebuilding they were 25 or so years old with nothing restricting their use in the future so it made sense to rebuild them.
The real problem was that the 40’ boxcar was functionally obsolete by the late 1960’s, grain was moving in 100 ton capy. covered hoppers, and lumber, paper, and merchandise was moving in 70 ton capy. 50’ boxcars with cushion underframes and wide or plug doors. The age issue sidelined the older 40-footers in the 1970’s but by 1985 virtually all were gone, including cars with 5 to 15 years of unrestricted interchange still available.
Typically, what I see now is that railroads retire over-age cars rather than confine them to on-line service. Even on today’s mega-systems there is a considerable amount of traffic interchanged between carriers; for example UP may move grain 2,000 miles from the Midwest to the LA area and then interchange it to the BNSF for a 10 mile delivery to a local industry. Although it’s possible to assign over-age cars to a pool with just on-line origins and destinations there really aren’t that many opportunities to do so.
[quote user=“sandiego”]
Don’t think that the equipment age issue was a consideration in the BN merger planning. The first regulation (no freight car underframes over 50 years old) restricting interchange by age didn’t start until 1970, according to my reference material.
Kurt-When I posted the original comment,I was unaware of that fact.Thanks.
The BN merger (modern version) was approved by the railroad’s board of directors in 1960 and after much delay was to take place 5-10-68. The merger was then blocked by Dept. of Justice and after a favorable Supreme Court ruling the merger was finally consummated 3-2-70. Since there was no age regulation at the time of the initial merger planning it probably seems not to have been a consideration.
The cars the GN rebuilt in the 1960’s were composite side cars from the late 1930’s and the 1940’s (GN had lots of these instead of all steel cars out of consideration for on-line lumber producers). At the time of rebuilding they were 25 or so years old with nothing restricting their use in the future so it made sense to rebuild them.
Kurt-Most of the cars got new sides and doors,along with Strengthened centersills,strengthened or replaced the car bolsters,replaced the draftsills,couplers,yokes,etc. Most of the ends and roofs of the cars were reused depending on condition and roller bearings replacing the brass journals on the trucks.
The real problem was that the 40’ boxcar was functionally obsolete by the late 1960’s, grain was moving in 100 ton capy. covered hoppers, and lumber, paper, and merchandise was moving in 70 ton capy. 50’ boxcars with cushion underframes and wide or plug doors. The age issue sidelined the older 40-footers in the 1970’s but by 1985 virtually all were gone, including cars with 5 to 15 years of unrestricted interchange still available.
-a lot of the problem replacing the 40’ box in grain service was light rail branches/bridge loadings and/or the builders