by KillerB
...indeed, why? After reading Rush Loving's "The Men Who Loved Trains," it's clear that in the two decades prior to the PC merger, dividends from the Pennsylvania's stake in the Norfolk & Western were providing the majority, if not all, of PRR's profits.
It's clear from the book (as well as from other sources) that the New York Central wanted to merge with the C&O, as the Virginia coal roads were far more profitable than the northern trunk lines. Obviously, they failed in their efforts, but the Pennsylvania would have had no such problem - they controlled the N&W. Perhaps the revenue from the N&W wouldn't have been enough to keep the Pennsy going through the 1970s, but they had to have known that the NYC, while in a better state in terms of overcapacity than the PRR, was not a healthy road.
Much has been written about the Pennsy's poor management before and after the merger, but it's hard to see why they wouldn't have preferred to merge with a profitable road. Was the ICC vehemently opposed to the PRR getting any larger? It seems as if they were not by the the 1950s and 60s - they let the PC merger happen, after all. Was it just the hubris of the Main Line management, figuring that by essentially being the senior partner in a merger with the NYC that they had "won" the battle with their long-time rival? Again, the NYC's logic is obvious in the matter - they were locked out of the merger they really wanted - but the PRR controlled the N&W. Or was their control not as solid as has been often said?
It's clear from the book (as well as from other sources) that the New York Central wanted to merge with the C&O, as the Virginia coal roads were far more profitable than the northern trunk lines. Obviously, they failed in their efforts, but the Pennsylvania would have had no such problem - they controlled the N&W. Perhaps the revenue from the N&W wouldn't have been enough to keep the Pennsy going through the 1970s, but they had to have known that the NYC, while in a better state in terms of overcapacity than the PRR, was not a healthy road.
Much has been written about the Pennsy's poor management before and after the merger, but it's hard to see why they wouldn't have preferred to merge with a profitable road. Was the ICC vehemently opposed to the PRR getting any larger? It seems as if they were not by the the 1950s and 60s - they let the PC merger happen, after all. Was it just the hubris of the Main Line management, figuring that by essentially being the senior partner in a merger with the NYC that they had "won" the battle with their long-time rival? Again, the NYC's logic is obvious in the matter - they were locked out of the merger they really wanted - but the PRR controlled the N&W. Or was their control not as solid as has been often said?