Charlie,
Overton indicates that they had a particular person in
mind to run the CB&N , (Albert E. Touzalin), and that
during and after the construction phase he just became
too independent. He made the Boston people nervous
but with all the money spent they just had to run with
what they set up. Mr Overton does not indicate any
direction from the North in this venture and in fact when
things started falling apart Hill turned down a complicated
request to share ownership in the CB&N.
The CB&Q Management had failed terribly with their first
try at going North, (the River Roads scandal), and Perkins
did not feel that they could manage to run the CB&Q and
build and establish another large extension. Having got
badly burned the first time Forbes agreed so that's the way
it went. CB&Q did not have a majority of the CB&N stock
until 1890 so for five years Touzalin ran his own railroad,
(he died in 1889), while Forbes sat in Boston and fumed.
The CMStP&P and the C&NW both blamed the CB&Q for
the rate instability and threatened retaliation elsewhere.
In some ways they were lucky to have retained control.
This was the same era where they had lost the Hannibal
and St Joseph and had to fight to get it back.
The first attempt to go North in 1875 caused the early
retirement of James F. Joy and a total reshuffle of the
board of directors. The second attempt created a lot of
enemies. It's surprising they ever got to St Paul at all.
Isn't reading "Burlington Route" a pre-requisite to joining
this list?
Russ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie Vlk" <cvlk@a...>
To: <BRHSlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 15 November, 2002 14:47
Subject: Re: [BRHSlist] Chicago, Burlington and Northern
> I am still stumped as to why the CB&N, at the late date it was formed and
> built, had independent designs for its equipment and structures. The much
> earlier B&MR and other subsidiaries were Aurora and Chicago designs all
the
> way.
> I think the NP was involved behind the scenes and there must have been
some
> consideration to the CB&N, at least before it actually was put into
> operation, as being an extension of the NP south rather than the Q north.
> We know the NP wasn't always a team player (as evidenced by the Chicago &
> Northern Pacific venture and the much later routing of NP trains into
> Chicago and Northwestern Terminal (over the C&NW???) Maybe there might be
> something in the executive letter folios at the Newberry....
> Charlie Vlk
|