The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1906-10-02
ORR GREAT RAILROAD SYSTEMS
Their Grouping According TO Owner
snip and Interests and Mileage OF
the Different Groups.

tA&ANA CANN A@ANAa
by addition of the properties dicetly
affiliated has ofen been attempt
ed. The process is not an easy one;
from direct control through lease or
stock ownership the interest Of n
railroad or group OF railroads In an
other railroad proceeds through sue
cessively lessening stages until the
border line is reached. beyond which
no tangible affliation exists. Close to
this border line there ia an area or
considerable uncertainty with regar
to the camp in which n road belongs
The clue furnished by the annual re-
ports IN such cases is apt TO be a slight
one. II is we'll known. for example.
that the Eanderbilts in connection with
Mr.. HughitI. hold enough proxies At a
Chicago and Northwestern meeting 10
control thc directorate: also, that the
Central OF Georgia Is controlled.
through stock ownership. by Southern
railway interests. and hence Is directly
affiliated with the southern: yet the
control in each OF these cases Is per-
sonal and not corporate. This distsnc-
ton between personal and corporate
control is the stumbling block In the
path Of the student Of railroad econo-
mics. who desires TO construct n cor
rect grouping Of the systems.
For the purpose Of the present
grouping. the border line. has been
arbitrarily fxed at the point where IL
seems most tangible and permanent.
The financial interest of great bank
ing houses and OF certain heavy indt-
vidual interests in systems not other
wise connected. has been excluded
from consideration for the reason that
It Is apt To be shadowy and loom great
er than IL really is. Mr.. Morgan n
his associates took the Louisville and
Nashville from John W. Gates. and
placed II with the Atlanti Coast line.
They also finance the southern railway
and the Erie. and Mr.. Morgan Is him
self n member of the directorate OF
the New York Central. the New York,
New haven and Hartford, and the
United States Steel corporation; but
II IS obviously stretching the imagina-
ton too far To say that any actual
affliation exists between the Atlantic
Coast Line. the Southern. the Erie. the
New York Central. the New Haven
and the Steel corporation.
1t will be understood that the lists
here given do not include all the lines
held in the great systems. For in
stance, n group OF four roads closely
held in the Vanderbilt Systematic
Peoria and Eastern, the Cincinnati
Northern, the Dunkirk, Allegheny VAL
ley and Pittsburg, and the Lake Eric,
Alliance INC Wheeling has been ex-
Guided from the group. in spite OF the
fact that each of these properties pre-
sents a separate report. for the rea-
son that they are So closely held in the
corporate bond that II seems unneC-
essary to single them out. The same
thing Is true OF the West Shore: but
the Boston and Albany, as n more re-
cent acquisition, has been listed sepa-
rately. This selection in this way.
,-bt1a - - annci1ArnI an nrIt-
trary one, is nevertheless probably
quite clear. and 1t seems advantageous
to avoid making a list long enough to
include each separate, small, controll-
ed company. Similarly, construction
companies, such as the Vancouver,
Victoria and Eastern, which il build
ing in Canada for the Hill system, are
excluded from the list. as II is certain
hat it is closely woven into the Great
Northern control. Roads OF over 500
miles which are to be ranked as d
pendent are grouped together under a
separate head. Certain Of these roads
have considerable mutually OF inter-
est in the way their securities are held,
but it is nevertheless true hat the
roads as given cannot be said to belong
in any Of the other groups, The Ger
trail idea has been to present a con-
else view of the actual railroad group
ing OF today, as It stands q matter of
public record. or OF definite public un-
d~erstanding.
In reckoning the mileage of each
OF the systems in the following tables.
no account has been taken Of roads
In which there is a part interest which
does not amount to control. For in
stance, the mileage OF the Chesapeake
and Ohio, the Reading. and the Hook
ing Valley, is not included in the state
ments of either the Vanderbilt or
Pennsylvania systems, although all
three roads are closely held in con-
troll by these two groups. Similarly
the mileage Of the Colorado Midland
controlled jointly by the Denver and
Rio Grande and Colorado and South
ern IS not included in either the Gould
or the Hawley systems. In the case
Of the Cincinnati, New Orleans and
Texas Pacific. controlled Jointly By
the Southern railway and the Cincin-
natl. Hamilton and Dayton, the fact
that the president Of the Southern
railway is president is responsible for
the inclusion Of its line in the mile
age Of the Southern railway system.
The figures used are In most cases
those of average mileage operated as
shown in the latest annual report.
The nine important systems and the
independent group are made I'D as
follows.
Vanderbilt System: 21.353 miles.
Hill System: 20,242 miles.
, Pennsylvania System: 1886 miles.
Gould System: 1880 miles.
Hartman System: 14.725 miles.
Rock Island System; 1885 miles.
Atlantic Coast Line System; I1.247
| miles.
Atlantic Coast Line.
Louisville asId Nashville.
Nashville. Chattanooga and st.
| Louis.
Louisville. Henderson and st. Louis.
| Atlanta and West Point.
Western Railway OF Alabama.
Georgia Railroad.
One-half Chicago, Indianapolis and
Louisville (Monon).
one-sixth ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
| Line.
Southern Railway System: 11,14s
| miles.
Hawley System: 1855 miles.
Independent Systems - including
A &C. "a