Bill, Yes, urging the abandonment of your RR and abusing trackage rights landlord status can explain acrimony on LV's part. I gather EL was not an enthusiastic supporter of the MARC-EL proposal. However I don't understand this "end-run" issue. Did EL think it was entitled to all N&W interchange upon creation of Dereco? What exactly did EL want LV to do, embargo interchange traffic off N&W? Bellevue-Sayre/Oak Island runthroughs predated Dereco. Any acrimony on EL's part should perhaps have been directed at N&W for not being a more supportive parent. Paul B Am I overstating the 1972-75 antagonism between EL and LV? Perhaps. My source: Reading all of the EL trustees minutes for this period. That, plus the fact that I worked on the 4R Act as a congressional staffer in 1975. I was employed by a Congressman who was second-ranking Republican on the House Transportation Subcommittee, and whose district extended from Wellsburg, NY (east of Elmira) across the Southern Tier to the west end of the state. Our office naturally took a great interest in the survival and independence of EL, the Chessie deal, and the D&H bandaid. Certainly, having to manage your business by means of filings in bankruptcy court (which is part of our adversarial legal system) tends to magnify differences. But that created perceptions at USRA and in Congress that helped form policy in 1975. I could have added that EL urged in court that LV be abandoned and if I recall correctly also attempted to frustrate the longstanding D&H/LV connection over Sayre and Binghamton, which functioned as part of the N&W end-run. WDB The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List http://EL-List.railfan.net/ To Unsubscribe: http://Lists.Railfan.net/erielackunsub.html ------------------------------
This HTML page is © 2000-2009 Blue Moon Online System and The Railfan Network
This page and the data contained therein may not be reproduced
for any form of commercial use without the explicit permission
of J. Henry Priebe Jr. or his duly authorized agent.