CHAPTER II.-THE NEW ENGLAND REGION.

Geographic peculiarities of New England, 509.-Gateways and rail connections (map), 510.-Volume of traffic by gateways analyzed, 510.-Excess of inbound tonnage and character of shipments, 512.-Interchange with outside companies analyzed (diagram), 512.

The advantages of trunk line plans outlined, 514.-Objections to PennsylvaniaNew Haven alliance, 515.-A New York Central-Boston & Maine merger also objectionable, 516.-Alternative alliance with Erie and Lackawanna-Nickel Plate, 517.

The plan for regional consolidation described, 517.-Advantages as respects outside relationships, especially routing, 518.-Effect upon dealings concerning division of through rates, 519.-Coal supply and a possible common fuel line, 519.Coastwise traffic encouraged and Canadian differential lines, 519.-Proposed fuel line to Harrisburg by consolidation of all New England lines with Lehigh & New England, 520.-Possible merger with certain trunk line coal roads, 521.-Domestic intra-New England considerations, 522.-Concentration of local interest and responsibility, commercial, financial, and political, 522.-Legal aspect as to preservation of competition met, 523.—The outstanding objection of financial weakness, 523.-The development of Boston as a seaport, 524.-Final acceptance of the regional plan as compelled by circumstances, 525.

The transportation problem of New England as respects consolidation is unique. (See map 8.) It is an economic unit on the outskirts of the central commercial territory of the United States. Although intensively developed industrially and densely populated all along the seaboard, its principal asset is its ample supply of high-grade labor. Its transportation problem, broadly viewed, is to foster its manufactures in three ways; first, by provision for the cheapest possible inbound carriage of raw materials, coal, cotton, iron, and steel; secondly, by insuring cheap transportation for foodstuffs and other necessities of common life from the remote centers of their production; and, thirdly, to make certain that the freight rates on its finished products, outbound, shall keep them in the various markets throughout the heart of the United States, in the face of constantly rising local competition thereabouts. Its density of traffic, particularly in passenger service, is noteworthy. The intricate and retail character of much of its trade and its highly specialized manufactures demand a convenient and efficient articulation of its railway net at numerous junction points. Its problem is so peculiar that it must be considered in somewhat minute detail as respects consolidation.

The geographical relationships of rail routings now available may best be considered first with reference to the gateways and rail connections. These may be listed as follows, the location being indicated upon the accompanying map:

The best evidence regarding the relative volumes of traffic, inbound and out, through the various gateways into New England, is afforded by the accompanying chart and statistics as to car interchange. These figures, it should be observed, are applicable only to New England as a group of railroads. They do not indicate the loads received or delivered by the different railways for their own individual account. Thus loads received by the New Haven may include cars for points in New England beyond its system, and loads delivered by the New Haven may include cars originating on the Boston & Maine, but passing through the New Haven system to this particular gateway. But considering the New England railroads as a group, this data affords a picture of the relative volumes of tonnage for the common account of the region as a whole through the different gateways. Disregarding details, this record discloses that the overwhelming preponderance of traffic received and delivered passes through five gateways across the Harlem or Hudson River. The most important single railroad as to receipts at one gateway alone is the Boston & Albany, which in 1919 received 277,236 loaded cars; but the New Haven at its two gateways of the Harlem River and Maybrook considerably surpasses it, with total receipts of 420,121 loads during 1919. In the same calendar year the Boston & Maine, through its two gateways at Rotterdam Junction and Mechanicville, was in receipt of 261,546 loaded cars. In other words, as to receipts, the Boston & Maine was not far behind the Albany, and both alike were greatly exceeded as to inbound loaded-car movement by the New Haven. But, as above stated, we have no way of ascertaining how large a proportion of this New Haven movement inbound from the west and south, was in fact destined to the different individual roads.

63 I. C. C.

0