locked The SCL Merger


George Eichelberger
 

Yet another major file(s) in the SRHA archives concern the Seaboard Coast Line merger in the mid 60s. In addition to competition from the ACL and SAL combination, the Southern was interested in improving their access to SCL traffic in Jacksonville (there was never any long haul interchange with the ACL there), Southern wanted to get to Tampa because of its port facilities and to have access to phosphate traffic out of Florida's "Bone Valley".

The courts quite consistently found in favor of ACL/SAL and ag ainst the Southern, FEC and GM&O (!). The various court battles, filings, local newspaper and editorial efforts make for a large file. Some findings by the ICC and courts against the Southern are inexplicable, it appears only one was overturned that allowed Southern to interchange cars with SCL in Jacksonville.

Giving up the trackage rights from Hardeeville to Jacksonville and to Portsmouth, VA are stories themselves. Why the Southern did not get the Tampa Northern to give it access to Tampa and the BV from the Palatka line are not explained except that SCL fought hard against it and the Florida courts appear to have been quite pro SCL.

A related file in the archives is on the little known plans for the Florida Phosphate Railroad that would have given the phosphate people their own line to Port Manatee. SCL would not allow a crossing at grade, a bridge over the Coast Line would have been too close to Tampa Bay to stop the heavy (!) phosphate trains.

Ike







Robert Hanson
 

To this day I wonder how many ICC commissioners the ACL and SAL paid off to get that kind of ruling.

It blows my mind that they were able to get the merger approved without giving up anything in the way of preserving competition.

I would have thought that they would have been forced to sell one of their Savannah-Jacksonville and Jacksonville-Tampa main lines along with other concessions elsewhere.

Just incredible.

Bob Hanson
Loganville, GA


-----Original Message-----
From: George Eichelberger <geichelberger@...>
To: main <main@SouthernRailway.groups.io>
Sent: Thu, Jan 2, 2020 9:30 am
Subject: [SouthernRailway] The SCL Merger

Yet another major file(s) in the SRHA archives concern the Seaboard Coast Line merger in the mid 60s. In addition to competition from the ACL and SAL combination, the Southern was interested in improving their access to SCL traffic in Jacksonville (there was never any long haul interchange with the ACL there), Southern wanted to get to Tampa because of its port facilities and to have access to phosphate traffic out of Florida's "Bone Valley".

The courts quite consistently found in favor of ACL/SAL and ag ainst the Southern, FEC and GM&O (!). The various court battles, filings, local newspaper and editorial efforts make for a large file. Some findings by the ICC and courts against the Southern are inexplicable, it appears only one was overturned that allowed Southern to interchange cars with SCL in Jacksonville.

Giving up the trackage rights from Hardeeville to Jacksonville and to Portsmouth, VA are stories themselves. Why the Southern did not get the Tampa Northern to give it access to Tampa and the BV from the Palatka line are not explained except that SCL fought hard against it and the Florida courts appear to have been quite pro SCL.

A related file in the archives is on the little known plans for the Florida Phosphate Railroad that would have given the phosphate people their own line to Port Manatee. SCL would not allow a crossing at grade, a bridge over the Coast Line would have been too close to Tampa Bay to stop the heavy (!) phosphate trains.

Ike








George Eichelberger
 

Trackage rights for the CG from Albany to Tifton were apparently agreed to by SCL but not done?

Ike


On Jan 2, 2020, at 10:44 AM, Robert Hanson via Groups.Io <RHanson669@...> wrote:

To this day I wonder how many ICC commissioners the ACL and SAL paid off to get that kind of ruling.

It blows my mind that they were able to get the merger approved without giving up anything in the way of preserving competition.

I would have thought that they would have been forced to sell one of their Savannah-Jacksonville and Jacksonville-Tampa main lines along with other concessions elsewhere.

Just incredible.

Bob Hanson
Loganville, GA


-----Original Message-----
From: George Eichelberger <geichelberger@...>
To: main <main@SouthernRailway.groups.io>
Sent: Thu, Jan 2, 2020 9:30 am
Subject: [SouthernRailway] The SCL Merger

Yet another major file(s) in the SRHA archives concern the Seaboard Coast Line merger in the mid 60s. In addition to competition from the ACL and SAL combination, the Southern was interested in improving their access to SCL traffic in Jacksonville (there was never any long haul interchange with the ACL there), Southern wanted to get to Tampa because of its port facilities and to have access to phosphate traffic out of Florida's "Bone Valley".

The courts quite consistently found in favor of ACL/SAL and ag ainst the Southern, FEC and GM&O (!). The various court battles, filings, local newspaper and editorial efforts make for a large file. Some findings by the ICC and courts against the Southern are inexplicable, it appears only one was overturned that allowed Southern to interchange cars with SCL in Jacksonville.

Giving up the trackage rights from Hardeeville to Jacksonville and to Portsmouth, VA are stories themselves. Why the Southern did not get the Tampa Northern to give it access to Tampa and the BV from the Palatka line are not explained except that SCL fought hard against it and the Florida courts appear to have been quite pro SCL.

A related file in the archives is on the little known plans for the Florida Phosphate Railroad that would have given the phosphate people their own line to Port Manatee. SCL would not allow a crossing at grade, a bridge over the Coast Line would have been too close to Tampa Bay to stop the heavy (!) phosphate trains.

Ike









Robert Hanson
 

I think that such rights were rendered redundant by the purchase of the Georgia Northern.  The Southern upgraded a portion of the road so that they could run trains from Albany over to Sparks, GA (just below Tifton on the GS&F) thus bypassing both Atlanta and Macon.

This was in the works at the time of the merger and was accomplished by 1968.

I don't know, but this seems to be the case.

Bob






-----Original Message-----
From: George Eichelberger <geichelberger@...>
To: main@southernrailway.groups.io <main@SouthernRailway.groups.io>
Sent: Thu, Jan 2, 2020 10:47 am
Subject: Re: [SouthernRailway] The SCL Merger

Trackage rights for the CG from Albany to Tifton were apparently agreed to by SCL but not done?

Ike


On Jan 2, 2020, at 10:44 AM, Robert Hanson via Groups.Io <RHanson669@...> wrote:

To this day I wonder how many ICC commissioners the ACL and SAL paid off to get that kind of ruling.

It blows my mind that they were able to get the merger approved without giving up anything in the way of preserving competition.

I would have thought that they would have been forced to sell one of their Savannah-Jacksonville and Jacksonville-Tampa main lines along with other concessions elsewhere.

Just incredible.

Bob Hanson
Loganville, GA


-----Original Message-----
From: George Eichelberger <geichelberger@...>
To: main <main@SouthernRailway.groups.io>
Sent: Thu, Jan 2, 2020 9:30 am
Subject: [SouthernRailway] The SCL Merger

Yet another major file(s) in the SRHA archives concern the Seaboard Coast Line merger in the mid 60s. In addition to competition from the ACL and SAL combination, the Southern was interested in improving their access to SCL traffic in Jacksonville (there was never any long haul interchange with the ACL there), Southern wanted to get to Tampa because of its port facilities and to have access to phosphate traffic out of Florida's "Bone Valley".

The courts quite consistently found in favor of ACL/SAL and ag ainst the Southern, FEC and GM&O (!). The various court battles, filings, local newspaper and editorial efforts make for a large file. Some findings by the ICC and courts against the Southern are inexplicable, it appears only one was overturned that allowed Southern to interchange cars with SCL in Jacksonville.

Giving up the trackage rights from Hardeeville to Jacksonville and to Portsmouth, VA are stories themselves. Why the Southern did not get the Tampa Northern to give it access to Tampa and the BV from the Palatka line are not explained except that SCL fought hard against it and the Florida courts appear to have been quite pro SCL.

A related file in the archives is on the little known plans for the Florida Phosphate Railroad that would have given the phosphate people their own line to Port Manatee. SCL would not allow a crossing at grade, a bridge over the Coast Line would have been too close to Tampa Bay to stop the heavy (!) phosphate trains.

Ike









Stephen Warner
 

One item that we obtained from the ACL/SAL merger that actually worked was the Savannah Interchange.  SCL/CSXT has (or had) the responsibility to handle CGA-SCL/CSXT interchange both ways year round. My counterpart at CSXT, Dave Houchin, one day called and said that we should equally handle responsibilities, which would of course require adding a 6 month job at Dillard Yd.  I researched the file and found a letter (not a formal agreement) that said that as a merger condition SCL would handle the I/C from both SCL yards to/from Dillard. I sent him a copy and told him that we would not agree to change a merger condition (same as the VGN/N&W Guyandot River 1959 agreement to Stone Coal Jct. - an arbitration upheld continuing this agreement).  Dave backed off.

Since NS in it's infinite wisdom has scanned the basic Joint Facility agreement files in ATL and destroyed the real files, and since this letter would not appear to be a formal agreement, I am reasonably sure that this and other meaningful correspondence and precedent has disappeared.


Robert Hanson
 

There's a lot of that "infinite wisdom" going around.

A scanned image is not the same as an original document, and frequently they'll scan a contract or document without scanning the supporting documents.

Do you have a question about this document?

Tough.

Bob Hanson
Loganville, GA


-----Original Message-----
From: sgwarner88 <sgwarner88@...>
To: main <main@SouthernRailway.groups.io>
Sent: Sat, Jan 4, 2020 12:25 pm
Subject: Re: [SouthernRailway] The SCL Merger

One item that we obtained from the ACL/SAL merger that actually worked was the Savannah Interchange.  SCL/CSXT has (or had) the responsibility to handle CGA-SCL/CSXT interchange both ways year round. My counterpart at CSXT, Dave Houchin, one day called and said that we should equally handle responsibilities, which would of course require adding a 6 month job at Dillard Yd.  I researched the file and found a letter (not a formal agreement) that said that as a merger condition SCL would handle the I/C from both SCL yards to/from Dillard. I sent him a copy and told him that we would not agree to change a merger condition (same as the VGN/N&W Guyandot River 1959 agreement to Stone Coal Jct. - an arbitration upheld continuing this agreement).  Dave backed off.

Since NS in it's infinite wisdom has scanned the basic Joint Facility agreement files in ATL and destroyed the real files, and since this letter would not appear to be a formal agreement, I am reasonably sure that this and other meaningful correspondence and precedent has disappeared.