August Fools?

Joe,

I hate to be that person but I'm starting to see prototype drift that you're not going to like in the future even if you keep the IAIS ops sessions the same. Based on what I've read about your modeling, this proto freelance story about the RI/UP is just a distraction from your frustrations about not having anything running yet. Hold the course steady...(Says the guy thinking about shifting his era by 20 years...)

Craig

Why a merger?

You don't really need a merger.  After the Rock folded the MP/UP acquired numerous Rock engines and cabooses.  Many of them continued to operate in Rock paint on the MP/UP.  Several of the work trains and locals I was involved with early in my career had Rock engines or cabooses.

You could just have the Rock fold later than it did and the UP acquire the engines and cabooses as they did historically, just a few years later.  Because of the UP-MP-WP merger the paint shops were backed up so the Rock engines survived for years in the Rock paint (maybe a patch or two.)

Craig

You could be right Craig, but this isn't something I'm pulling the trigger on just yet.  What I am considering is selling off the UP coal train with modern GE & EMD power sitting in staging, as I just can't seem to get excited about that apart from the sound variety that the power offers.  UP ran 4 detours on IAIS during May 2005, and three of them had modern GEs and SD9043ACs.  The fourth had a pair of SD40-2s, so part of me has considered selling off the coal detour equipment at the very least and just running the manifest detour with those 40s.

But yes, it'd probably be wise to stay the course with no sales or purchases until I get things running again.  Still, it's nice to have a Plan B that I could fall back to.  As I've found with other prototype creep temptations in the past, sometimes just allowing myself to do it or having a plan that would allow it to happen is all it takes to disarm the temptation.  Besides not having anything running yet, the other thing that keeps feeding these quandaries in my head is that I feel like this is my last chance to make a change, so I question whether I want to commit to the IAIS for the rest of my life.  It's nice knowing that I can go down that path and still have this opportunity to scratch my 1980s itch without a complete rebuild.

Why a merger?

Dave, when I posted this, I had you in mind and was hoping you'd offer guidance since you lived through all this with the MP and UP.  If I go ahead with the idea, I want it to meet my goals, but also want it to be as seamlessly believable as possible.

My thinking around the merger was that I needed a reason for the UP to be on this former RI line, but I also wanted the timing to be right to keep traffic levels and speeds relatively low during my era. I also like the idea of modeling the MP and WP equipment I remember in local service in 1984 and beyond, which means setting the backdated sessions sometime after merger completion in January 1983.  In order for me to set the date no earlier than that, I didn't think it'd make sense for the RI to go under and the UP to pick up the Chicago-Council Bluffs main in 1980 since that would give them plenty of time to rehab it so that, by 1983+, it was supporting more trains and higher speeds than what I wanted on the layout.

Also, having the UP acquire/merge with the RI would allow me to model ANY of the RI power (e.g. the SD40-2s I like) rather than just the GP40s and U28Bs that the UP financed for them and the GP38-2s that went to MP. 

Does that make sense?  I've always felt that the most effective proto-freelancing plans are those that require the least amount of explanation and the fewest alterations to history, so that's what I'm trying to accomplish with including the RI in the UP/MP/WP merger.

I like it

I think its good to have the plan in your back pocket, whether you go with your original or Dave's revision.  Maybe you never do it, but you can if you decide you want to with little change to your existing layout.  I've got a similar plan for my era on my future N scale layout - I can either have it late 80s/early 90s or 70s to early 80s just by swapping the equipment and vehicles.

Of course, I'm not nearly as set on duplication of a specific locale as you are, I'm generally more freelance in general, but I don't think its ever a bad thing to have an alternate plan if you do get bored with something.  I like how Joe Fugate rolled his timeline through the 80s so he would see some varieties in equipment over time on the layout.  I think its just natural for many of us to want some variety over time, even though we still like our original setting.

The CNW

The wild card in all of this is the CNW.  The UP had a love-hate relationship with the CNW for decades.  That's why some of the MILW passenger trains were painted in UP colors.

The reason the UP was interested in the RI (other than the original merger) and later IAIS was the CNW was in danger of being taken over by an investment company.  The risk was the CNW would have been broken up and sold off for cash.

In order to counter that the UP paid for dibs on the IAIS in order to make sure they had a route into Chicago.

What really happened was the UP bought a bunch of special stock, keeping the CNW independent, but then after several years it converted into regular stock and the UP was able to get enough control to merge the UP and CNW.

So another option would be to delay the various financial machinations by several years and continue the adversarial posture between the UP and the CNW, delaying the UP/CNW merger, causing the UP to divert more traffic over the IAIS.  

Or... to say that the Blackstone thing happened and the UP had to acquire the IAIS.

Agh!!

,,,this...

Oh dear, oh dear... dear, dear, me.

Aside from the UP's 1st gen stuff... I can't EVEN understand how one could PREFER the UP over the RI once into the late 70s.

The RI's gaggle of non-standard locomotives, their ADHD in they couldn't focus on a paint scheme for 'em (an aspect of the RI I LOVE), their "fix up and make do let's see if we can hold on" situation made for some very interesting weathering candidates (locomotives)... on and on.

However, we each like what we like... and 99% of the time what we like usually varies among us ... which is part of what makes this hobby so grand. (But drives the mfg'ers nuts!)

Have fun!

Andre

Dave

Very good point about Blackstone and the CNW Dave.  I hadn't thought about those dealings perhaps paving the way for a more believable reason for UP running on this route in the 80s.  I remember you guys kicking the tires on the IAIS during that June 1989 inspection special. 

A few thoughts that might influence my decision about going that route:

• Cabooses - One of my key reasons for backdating would be caboose operations, but my recollection was that cabooses were largely gone in Iowa by 1989.  Do you recall?  I think I could get away with having them on locals, but could I also justify their continued existence on road trains somehow?
• UP GP30s - Another must-have, and I believe the last few examples (723, 804, and maybe a few others)  made it to 1989.
• Wouldn't allow for much RI equipment, but I could live with that
• Would likely make the presence of UP on the 4th Sub more believable.  They've long had trackage rights on the IAIS (though related to the UP-CNW merger), so having UP here is really nothing new.  And the fact that this arrangement wouldn't alter the course of history by saving the RI would definitely be a plausibility bonus in that regard (sorry RI fans).
• At first glance, I was thinking that UP exercising their option to buy the IAIS would be tougher to swallow since, while it wouldn't alter history, it could have altered the post-1980s future since there likely wouldn't have been a CNW merger, but then I realized that wouldn't necessarily be the case.  Wouldn't it be possible that the CNW merger would have eventually gone ahead due to WRPI and other enticing factors, but at a higher price to the UP due to Blackstone's involvement?  With the IAIS already in the fold, such an arrangement could have avoided the need to rebuild the CNW's second main across Iowa, allowing for directional running instead.

RI vs. UP

Hahaha!  All very good points about the RI Andre.  However...

• The IAIS lets me scratch that RI-like itch regarding weathering challenges and one-off paint schemes
• I'm not a big fan of GEs, and the RI really liked their GEs
• I am a big fan of UP SD40-2s and GP30s.  Got my first diesel cab ride in GP30 804 back in the day.
• I grew up in Council Bluffs, where the local news (Omaha stations) always had lots of UP commercials, all of which featured UP employees singing (sometimes poorly), "We're the Union Pacific, we can handle it for you!".  (Eventually made contact with an employee in the UP museum who agreed to make me a VHS tape with all the UP commercials on it.)  Also spent my high school years - 1981-84 - living next door to a UP engineer, Don Aldredge, who ran the 800s when they were still in regular service.  Don once took me to see the 8444 in about 1981 when it came to town, giving me a great tour of the cab and description of many details I've long since forgotten.  He LOVED his job and had a contagious enthusiasm for the UP.  As a result, I had it instilled in me during my formative years that the Union Pacific is the greatest class 1 railroad that ever was, and that feeling has never really left me.

While the RI was a super interesting railroad, it left us just about the time that I was getting interested in trains, so I never had a personal connection with it.  That's kind of key for me in choosing a prototype to model.

I had been modeling the

I had been modeling the Norfolk Southern route between Chicago and Elkhart set in 2006, but I had to tear down the layout 2 years ago. Now I am planning a SOO Line layout set in the early 1990's. I plan on doing their main through Iowa between Kansas City and Chicago. Doing the early 1990's SP had run through coal trains, and most still had caboose, and the BN Clinton local, and even some SOO freight trains still were running caboose. My main reason for the change was I never cared for wide cab's, and this gives me several railroads that were fallen long before 2006. 

Doug Lambert 

Awesome!

Joe, 

Really interesting idea, and I am really looking forward to following along this alternative history on the IAIS 4th sub layout. 

Can not wait to see the eclectic mix of equipment.

Bob

Mergers

Mergers suck!

-Penn Central Transportation Company

Timeline

It is a messy timeline since you are having to keep 1970's things and include 1990's things, forcing 20 years to happen simultaneously.  It would be easier to do the UP/Rock and forget the IAIS, or to do the Rock/IAIS and forget the UP.

The basic conundrum is that if the UP acquires the Rock trackage, there is no IAIS.  The IAIS can't live until the Rock dies.  The UP will repaint the Rock equipment pretty quick after they acquire it, the UP doesn't want a bankrupt railroad heading up their trains for very long.  The PC, CRIP and IC were the poster children for the decline of US railroads back in the 1970 and 1980's (cue the "City of New Orleans" background music).

That puts you someplace in the mid to late 1980's.  You get the UP early units, you get the formative years of the IAIS and the demise of the Rock.  You get the UP/MP/WP merger.

I can't remember, what are the IAIS's major connections on the east end?

One possible scenario is that the CRIP folded, the IAIS is formed, the UP/MP/WP merger happens.  The CNW is overloaded so the UP runs a couple trains across the IAIS because they connect directly with **** at the east end.

Next issue is that the probability of putting MP/WP/Rock power on those trains is actually fairly low.  Unless they are some magical mystery tour business that originates in KC, comes to Co Bluffs and then goes to Chicago, the is ZERO chance of a non-UP leader.  Any UP train would need CCS to go west of Co Bluffs/Fremont and would need dynamic brakes to go west of N Platte.  Post UP/MP/WP merger most of the blue MP and WP units were banished south of KC.

Another alternative is to have a run-through train between the UP and the IAIS from Co Bluffs to ***** The up would provide half the power and the IAIS would provide half the power.  The IAIS has assigned the bigger, better Rock power to the train and the UP provides whatever misc. engines it has to handle it, lower end power rather than the big jacks that they keep on the CNW.

UP/RI

Doug, nice to hear of a kindred spirit!

Bob, thank you.  Hopefully any changes I pursue won't make things too eclectic.

redP, only the wrong mergers suck.  And only for some of us.  I loved the BN, but I can understand why people hated it for taking their favorite roads.  Then I hated the BNSF for the same reason.  Don't even get me started on the CN or CSX.

EJ&E and IHB at Chicago (and CSX, NS, CN, CP, and everyone else as a result) and NS and PPU at Peoria

Something I may not have been clear about:  I'm not looking to combine UP and IAIS as though they would coexist in the 1980s.  I'm only suggesting that, in addition to my current May 2005 IAIS, I could swap out the IAIS stuff and 2005 vehicles and swap in UP/MP/WP and 1980s vehicles as a sort of alternate history op session.  In 1980s sessions where the latter were in use, the IAIS either never existed (if I go with a UP/MP/WP/RI merger approach) or only existed for 4-5 years before being taken over by the UP (if I go with your Blackstone idea).  Either way, a 1984 or 1988/89 session would have no IAIS involvement apart from maybe some stray MOW cars or other rolling stock if the UP gained control of the IAIS.

I don't have much to offer

I don't have much to offer here other than to say I really enjoy this discussion, the bits of history and the lamentations of trying to stitch together a plausible operating scheme while honoring that history.

It's why I have such a hard time nailing down a specific date of my own since things were in such a state of flux at the time of the Rio Grande/SP merger and UP/MKT merger. To get one thing I have to give up another, even within a short window of time. 

Ryan

Isn't that the truth?  When the UP was running cabooses and all the power I like best, they had little to do with the IAIS, and I wasn't interested in the IAIS's early power.  But later when the UP was detouring over IAIS (up to 8 trains a day) and the IAIS power was right up my alley, the cabooses were gone and most of the units were safety cabs.

How about some BN

Joe

Too bad you weren't into the BN. I have some interesting files BN considered the RI routes in Iowa and Illinois .

Ron

UP inspection train Blue island

Directed Service

If memory serves,  the IAIS wasn't formed until, what, 1984?  The Iowa Railroad was formed to keep up service on the old Rock Island main from the Crandic at Iowa City to the Quad Cities.  It later took over the line all the way to the Bluffs, but didn't have enough capital to keep it going.  The IAIS was formed by several large on-line customers to replace the Iowa RR.

So who operated the West End (Bluffs to Iowa City) before the Iowa RR did?  Just as the BN took over the western end of the old Milwaukee main to the Bluffs under a Directed Service Order from the ICC, you could say the UP got an DS order to operate the West End of the Rock.  Instead of buying it, the UP lets it go to the new IAIS in 1984 (or whenever).  That way you get UP operations under a very plausible set of circumstances and you don't have to change anything about the IAIS's actual history.   You just say the Iowa RR never got to the Bluffs.

Scott Chatfield 

Directed Service

That would work.

Joe, I am a fan of rewriting

Joe, I am a fan of rewriting history to what could have been. This is a hobby after all. My choices involve several real railroads that actually did merge although not exactly as I portray them. I am also reversing some bad political and business decisions to preserve prosperity. 
Two railroads will be modeled faithfully and I will include my freelance line.

 In your case it looks like it takes less of a change to get what you want than mine and still allows for you to remain true to reality for one of your options. I think you will be quite pleased with the options you have outlined. You should go for it.

Very stupid question

Hi,

looks like a nice plan.

Without having read all of the discussion, when reading the original post I was thinking (which is bad

- Would it be possible the UP had identified the RI/IAIS line as an important detour/alternate line? With the original owner (the RI) on the brink of folding, the UP pushed just enough detour traffic over the line to keep this part of the RI barely surviving - not exactly owning the line, but being the major user. The UP may even loan a loco or two to the RI for local traffic (they don't want broken down RI locos to get in the way of their detour trains

- With the RI basically broken, the UP may have some interest in creating a small railroad company (which they have some control over) to operate this line (which later becomes the IAIS). It may be that this is just happening around the time of your setting?

This may be a little less "modification" than your original idea, while still satisfying the "spirit" of the idea?

As I said, just thinking out loud

Have fun and stay healthy

Era matters

Sorta kinda.  Remember in the era that this scenario would be happening, its before the CNW merger, so the UP ends at Co Bluffs and doesn't have a line to Chicago.  Its not really a 'detour' since the UP doesn't have any trackage to "detour" around.  The UP gaining control of the line would be seen by the other class 1 railroads as an intrusion and set off a bunch of objections and lawsuits from the other railroads.  Directed service would circumvent that because its ICC/STB mandated so There would be less room for objections.  And it would solve a major barrier that pops up.

The barrier.  Once again, it wouldn't really have the option.  Since the CNW is a separate railroad in the Rock era, its listed on the waybills for the cars in the route.  If the UP takes a shipment for the CNW and puts it on the Rock, there are all sorts of penalties and the Rock would technically be required to give the cars back to the UP as a misroute.  If it moves a CNW routed car over the Rock it is diverting revenue from the CNW to the Rock and the CNW will be in court in a matter of minutes.

With directed service its the movement of the Rock's traffic routed over the Rock, so there is no problems with billing and no penalties.  It doesn't increase the traffic and doesn't add revenue to the Rock, but that's not the object.  The Directed service is a temporary holding pattern until a permanent buyer can be found.  The UP is only required to maintain existing service, not increase it or rebuild the railroad.  Since Joe is limited to only a few trains, and likes slower speed operation, keeping the volume down and not expediting things fits right into his operating preferences.

Joe...

Just funnin' with 'ya!

Had it fallen to the UP to host my first cab ride, well, that might have changed aspects of my interests/modeling, too.

First cab ride?

For me, as a lad in KC KS, it was the Rock Island that hosted my first cab ride back when I was about 6 years old (maybe 7?). That came about via a friend's dad that worked for the Rock Island over in Armourdale, KS. Lee's dad gave us (son Lee and I) the Grand Tour of the engine area that included a cab ride in a Geep being hostled. (Which included a ride on the turn table!) Thus, a life long interest in the RI. Some 26 years ago, It became one of my "Foundational Four" regionals that guided (still guides) my decisions for my freelanced effort.

SO... we always make allowances for our preferences. It's part of the fun of model RR-ing.

Andre