The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1927-03-26
QUESTION OF WHETHER TO HAVE
OR 5 TRUNK LINES IS CENTER OF
WAR OVER GROUPING OF RAILROADS

of the Nickel Plate, Erie, Chesapeake
and Ohio, Pcre Marquette and Hook
ing Valley.
The chief figures in the fight over
four or five linc systems, with the
Interstate Commerce Commission
trying for a solution are Samuel
Kca, president Of the Pennsylvania;
George +. Baker, dominant force in
the Lehigh Valley and New York
Central; Leonor +. Lorec. head Of the
Delaware and Hudson: Daniel Will
larc, president of the Baltimore and
Ohio, and the Van Swcringens OF
Cleveland.
with the Transportation Act Of
1920 openly espousing great railroad
solicitations where there had for
years been severe opposition to them,
President Ripley of Harvard was en-
gagged by the Interstate Commerce
Commission to evolve an amalgama-
ton plan Professor Ripley favored
a five trunk line system, namely the
Pennsylvania: the New York Cen
trail; Baltimore and Ohio; the Erie
and the creation Of fifth system.
He further proposed to award the
Jersey Central and the Reading to
the Baltimore and Ohio; the Lchigh
NallcV 10 Inc TIie W "hINH "VuaN ~
added the Wabash.
Kipley's Plan
Professor Ripley created NTH
trunk line with the Lackawanna as
the main stem to which would be
added the Nickel Plate; the Buffalo,
Rochester and Pittsburgh, the West
ern Maryland. the Wheeling and Lake
Erie, the Bessermer and Lake Erie
and the Lake Erie and Western.
The Ripley plan left the Pennsyl-
vania untouched except to take away
from it the Norfolk and Western
which he wanted as the nucleus of
another east and west system to
parallel the Chesapeake and Ohio.
The Interstate Commerce Commits
sion substituted in the Ripley plan
the Leigh Valley for the main stem
for the fifth system and gave the
Lackawanna to the Erie; assigned
the Western Maryland to the New
York Central and suggested that the
Baltimore and Ohio take over the
New Haven.
Sharp shooting com mcnced with
the publication Of the plan and the
battle began. The plan seemed to
find no favor in any railroad quarter.
The New YORK Central wanted the
Jersey Central and this provoked
omen opposition from the Baltimore
and Ohio while the Pennsylvania pro-
tested against being shorn Of the
Norfolk and Western.
New militant railroad forces came
upon the scene of conflict when the
Van Swerngens appeared with their
plans for a trunk line system. They
opposed joining the Nickel Plate
with the Lackawanna or the Lehigh
but wanted the Chesapeake and Ohio.
The Van Sweringens later suggested
the consolidation Of the Nickel
Plate, the Erie. Chesapeake and
Ohio. Pere Marquette and Hooking
| Valley.
Previous Proposals Discarded
All previous proposals went into
the discard and certain executives
Of eastern railroads planned four
| line trunk system. This plan, still
being urged by the New York Cen
trial. was opposed by Samuel Rea.
president Of the Pennsylvania, and
| brought Leonor +. Loree back from
"A European vacation and caused the
Baltimore and Ohio and the Van
| Sweringen forces to join issue with
the New York Central as against the
Pennsylvania.
Loree found that the four trunk
line plan left the Delaware and Hud-
son practically isolated. He pro-
posed as substitute a fifth trunk
line made up of the Delaware and
Hudson: 1.chigh Valley, the West
Shore. Buffalo. Rochester and Pitts
burgh with quarter interest in the
Reading and Jersey Central. Lorec
also wanted the Besscrmer, and Lake
Erie; Western Maryland and Wheel
inc and Lake Erie.
The head Of the Delaware and
Hudson aggressively waged his cam.
pagn. while this plan was bcinl
formulated. by securing options or
the Buffalo. Rochester and Pitts
burgh and then threw q bomb in the
railroad camps by asking the Inter.
state Commerce Commission permits
sion to bufld line across Pennsyl.
vania from Easton. to Pittsburgh
and also asking certain trackagt