New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1921-08-30
Many Changes
In Rail Lines
Are Proposed
Ripley Plan of Consoli-
dated Systems Under the
transportation Act Is Be-
fore /. G.. C.. for Action
Competition to Continue
To Combine Weak Roads
With Strong Ones to
: Improve Whole Situation

soliiston Of the railroads as pro
yidsd for in the transportation act was
published yesterday in Wall Street.
/ The commissions program, which, ac-
eording to G. +. McGinty. secretary to
The Interstate Commerce Commission.
will be made public in several weeks.
|| will be based on a voluminous report
\ to the commission by Professor VII
\ liam 2. Ripley. Of Harvard University.
railroads OF the country into nine
teen systems, it is understood.
The transportation act provided that
substantially the same competition as
row exists as between different roads
should be preserved in making the
consolidation. TIE idea lying back Of
consolidating the roads was 50 to con-
bne weak roads and strong roads that
the weak road problem would be elimi
mated. Apparently Professor Ripley
took this as the main object and most
important guide to the formulation Of
| his plan. He has treated the provi
sion in regard to competition in y
broad way and has not hestated. ap
parently, to combine roads that MIGHT
under conceivable circumstance com
pete. Thus ne has combined in orc
system the St. Louis & San Francisco.
the st. Louis Southwestern and tho
Missouri, Kansas {; Texas, which are
al competitive one with another on
certain kinds Of business. He also has
combined the Chicago, Milwaukee &;
St. Paul and the Great Northern, which
now compete on through transconti-
mental business.
Ripley knows Situation
Professor Ripley was intimately IN
miliar with the Southwestern railway
situation and was q director of thu
Chicago, Rock Island e. Pacific. He
also is intimately familiar with thc
New haven situation, and for the So
luton Of that problem he suggests two
slternatlye plans, one grouping the
New England roads as & single. self
contained system, the other eroupinc.
the New England roads as svsten,
and hooking them with the Delaware
hudson, the Lackawanna and the
Bufalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh.
neither grouping interprets the prohi-
ol''on OF elimination OF competition in
narrow way, but the first nlan docs
no' combine any strong roads with the
New England weak ones. whereas tAe
second plan com bines the three strong
roads delaware, Lackawanna & Nes.-
D. 80 "Ie q Hudson and Buffalo,
noel. & Pittsburgh-with the
weaa r2aas. In combining the Della
ware d Hudson and the Delaware. Iack
s~anna & Western Professor RiDlev
mas eliminated very considerable
amount OF competition.
>. Inc groupings as published follow
u VIII be noted that some roads 30
lnciuded in more than one eroun' oro-
samaoly because they may be divided
up or because, for purposes Of discus
s s.Sn, u was desirable to suggest alter
Proposed Systems
No. l. New York Central svster
New York Central lines. excent Like
.re & Western, Toledo &. Ohio Cen
Mal, GAINESVILLE & Western, Kanawha &,
NC Mlehlgan, and Indiana Harbor Belt;
western Maryland, Fonda, Johnstown
9 g., 9'ioVersvlIle, Lake Erie G. Pittsburgh.
vM'slsourgh. CHARTERS & Youghioghenv.
Sronohgane.a' Boston & Maine, Maine
SSentra and Bangor G. Aroostool..
Note-Boston & Maine, Maine Censral
ana Bangor {, Aroostook MAJ be in
cc.uoed IN system No. 7 or in Ia Pro-
iessor Ripley rejects trunk line treat
ment OF the New England roads, but
ne commission presents it alterna-
aye'y 70 bring out discussion.
NO. 10. z. pennsylvania system Penn
Hy!Vanla, Panhandle, Toledo, Peoria {.
,"es'ern; Lorain, Ashland T. Southern,
Lake Erie & Pittsburgh, Central Ind
ana PITTSBURGH, Charters & Ycuehio-
gn,cny and Monongahela
NO }. Baltimore & Ohio system
fSairmere & Ohio. PENDING. Central Of
New Jersey. Cincinnati. Indianapolis &
r"es'ern' Chicago, Indiaranolis &
louisville; New York, New Haven &
hartford; Central New England. Le
3nign & New England and Lchigh 4
n ntnason Note-Baltimore ( Ohio
Inlcaeo Terminal is reserved for con-
s;:oe'aflon IN connection with terminal
situations
NJ l. Erie svstem-Erie. Delaware
& Hudson. Delaware. Lackawanna E.
"estern; Ulster {. Delaware. Bc.scnaer
O.. LAKE Erie. Buffalo e. Susorohsnna.
ssii,'s0urgh Z Shawmut, Pittaburgh
Sase%nus & Northern; Lorain. Ashland
r. = NoutneTn and Wabash lines cas-. cf
Missouri River.
no. ;. Nickel Plate-1chigh yall.y
fry,S'en- Leigh Valley New York.
Sn'cafo & St. Louis; Toledo. st. louis
:, western Detroit & Toledo Short
= III, Laxe Ere Western, Wheeling
IKE Erie, Pittsburgh &. Woat Vir-
s',ia ara Ressemer z Lake Erie.
No. 6. Pcre Marouettc system
ssrs Marquette. Detroit & Mac1inac.
n en- Ar5or, Detroit Toledo z: Ironsor.
D01ns City Gaylord {, hlrena.
New England Plan
y No. Now England systern-Tou,
su,sven, Ontario & Western. Hoston E.
pane, Maine Central Bangor &
IIfo,os.ook, Lehigh Il Hudson Piycr, lie
n'ee New Fngland.
10. 7a-Eew England Great Iakos
sxs,sr-Same - above, with addition
~ ~ Deiaware z, Hudson, Lachawanna.
User z Delaware. Buffalo, Rochester
9 g.. Iltzorrgn, P.ttehurqh 2. cnawu1ut
's.,-onfgh, Shawmut & Northern.
~, 30. Chesapeake 3 Ohio system
y,T;'.sspeaks & Ohio, Hooking Valley,
~ No. .9~Norfol> L western system
crvf''i< q Western, Toledo (; Ohio
xs''a Kara~ha e. Michigan.
- lo-SoGthorn aye tenn Southern
nf,~ =, ard affiliated lines, Kew
yIe eIIsbs' Great %orthcrn. Alabama &
M, ~. II. Atlantic Co.'s. Line-Louis-
, .'S Il Nashville system Those two
s-s sne sphT.tiariey, Western Rail
~ ~ q h'abama. Richmond, Frdricks
,.s Fotonac. Norfolx Southern, A.
| ~, 'ainTnam II htiautic. Win
r{Is..'siffo Sous bound nranckr to
Z W. salon hsacr II Inc Norfolk
H. "'x1t' ~, Florida lags cast, Gro
H., N1nenGd Il ono, GoorQia e.
s..e@ bnif. Mobile Il Northern,
,sssz'ppl Cfntrai.
,y W. II Illinois Central Scaboard
III Illinois Centra]. ScaboarA PR