1964: Union Pacific + Rock Island

Alan Liesse
6 min readSep 27, 2014

--

Perhaps the greatest “lost” merger of the 1960's was that of Union Pacific and the Chicago Rock Island & Pacific. Both were railroad legends with a vast amount of track in their respective regions and a map would show the two almost fitting like a glove.

Map showing the combined Union Pacific and Rock Island systems. The two shared trackage between Denver and Limon, Colorado, but nowhere else. We can see what a benefit each railroad would have had for the other in this scenario.

Looking at the map, it’s hard to see why the Interstate Commerce Commission would have had a hard time approving the merger (especially when, during the same time, it was faced with more monopolizing mergers like Penn Central and Burlington Northern). The two railroads hardly shared any traffic sources except in the eastern parts of Nebraska and Kansas. Connections would open for shippers and other railroads. On paper, the whole situation appears cut-and-dried.

Whatever the ICC’s hesitation, the real merger was approved in 1973, but Rock Island, needing a large amount of capital from a partner to maintain their lines, allowed their system to fall into disrepair, counting on UP’s money to be able to pull them out. By the time the merger was approved, UP no longer wanted the deteriorating railroad and backed out.

However, we will explore a scenario with a much speedier ending.

UP-Rock files for a merger in 1964. Here are some of the arguments heard in the case:

For: Shippers, who are loving the opened connections, despite being concerned about UP having such a clear competitive advantage that they may become overzealous with rates (regulation notwithstanding). A shipper in Iowa, for example, would now have his choice of shipping lanes all the way to the West Coast. Shippers in the Pacific Northwest would now have the opportunity for single-carrier haulage as far as Chicago, St. Louis, and the Gulf of Mexico (hello Galveston indeed).

Several large Eastern railroads were also voices for the merger, favoring a single-carrier connection to Los Angeles and the Pacific Northwest. The merger would allow access to every major western port except Oakland and San Diego.

Against: The chief opponent was Southern Pacific, although various other Midwest “granger” roads added their voices as well. SP’s concern was mainly the Golden State route between Tucumcari and Kansas City, which for years had been a solid partnership with the Rock Island. The two even shared a streamlined passenger train on this route. SP was concerned about losing traffic to the new UP-Rock combination and petitioned with the ICC to deny the merger, or to force the new railroad to sell the Golden State route to SP. SP also asked for trackage rights on the soon-to-be ex-Rock Island between Kansas City and St. Louis, which would allow for better connections for their proposed new customers in Kansas.

Union Pacific-Rock Island system proposal, with Southern Pacific superimposed for visual representation. Note the Golden State route from El Paso to Kansas City, which SP petitioned to be sold to them in the event the merger was approved. SP owned the line between El Paso and Tucumcari and partnered with Rock Island for the rest. For good measure, SP also petitioned for trackage rights on the Rock Island between Kansas City and St Louis in order to make better connections between Kansas and the Mississippi River.

Other protests were presented by Chicago Burlington & Quincy, Chicago & Northwestern, Milwaukee Road, and Chicago Great Western. Rock Island shared a significant portion of its market with these roads and the carriers were concerned that the connections offered by a combined UP-Rock would drive away their own Midwest business. (CGW wound up being the only one who did not drop their protest before the merger was approved, see later posts.)

After hearing all arguments and considering the long-term effects, the ICC allowed the merger in the first quarter of 1966, granting SP it’s purchase request for the Golden State route and trackage rights to St Louis. The new system became Union Pacific in corporate identity, establishing UP’s tendency to buy out rather than to merge. Rock Island locomotives soon emerged from the railroad’s shops in Cheyenne, Wyoming and Silvis, Illinois in Armour Yellow. For a short time, UP labeled former Rock diesels with a red “ROCK ISLAND” on the long hood, but this practice was eventually discontinued.

Concept of a UP-Rock Island GP38 ca. 1966. Image from the Railroad Paint Shop, http://paintshop.railfan.net.

With the merger, what UP streamliners were left were now able to visit Chicago directly on home rails. Previously the railroad had used the Milwaukee Road to take its trains from Omaha to Chicago Union Station, but the new system shifted everything to UP control and the trains now served La Salle Street Station. The trains were also now able to call directly in Des Moines, and some could serve Peoria (although this was too out of the way for trains like the City of San Francisco). The arrangement would only last five years before the formation of Amtrak.

Below we see two system maps post-merger. The first shows just the combined UP-Rock system (which takes on the Union Pacific name and writes Rock Island out of existence), the second shows the Golden State route having been conveyed to SP and how that affects both systems.

Updates system map of the combined UP-Rock system. UP gains access to markets and connections in the Twin Cities, Chicago, Memphis, St Louis, Ft Worth, and Houston, plus the Gulf of Mexico at Galveston. Rock Island customers gain access to ports at Los Angeles (and, by association, Long Beach), Portland, Tacoma, and Seattle.
The above map shows how the SP and UP systems both changed with the sale of the Golden State route to SP, and trackage rights gained between Kansas City and St Louis. UP lost nothing except for an alternative route to the Texas Panhandle, and SP maintained the traffic levels that they had enjoyed before the merger.

PASSENGER TRAINS

UP was essentially done with most passenger service, as was Rock Island. The streamliner era was coming to a close and railroads were trying to do everything they could to cast off money-losing passenger services. After the merger, the combined road ran these trains:

Challenger: Los Angeles-Chicago (coach and dome). *This train previously operated via Cheyenne and Omaha; with the new system it was rerouted through Denver and Kansas City
City of Denver: Denver-Chicago via Cheyenne and Omaha
City of Los Angeles: LA-Chicago (with sleeper accommodations) via Cheyenne and Omaha
City of San Francisco: Oakland-Chicago via Cheyenne and Omaha
City of St Louis: LA-St Louis via Cheyenne and Kansas City (no Denver service). *This train was operated jointly with the Wabash from Kansas City to St Louis, but was shifted to all UP rails with the merger.

Golden State: LA-Chicago (UP only operated the Kansas City-Chicago portion, the rest of the train was transferred to SP control)
Rocky Mountain Rocket: Denver-Chicago via Salina and Kansas City
Twin Star Rocket: Houston-Twin Cities via Wichita, Kansas City, and Des Moines
Corn Belt Rocket: Omaha-Chicago via Des Moines (combined with the City of San Francisco almost immediately)
Choctaw Rocket: Tucumcari-Memphis via Oklahoma City

In 1969, UP combined all the “City” trains into one big train east of Ogden (the City of St. Louis was truncated to an Omaha-St Louis train). The railroad discontinued all service in 1971 with the formation of Amtrak, which will be discussed in a later article.

FREIGHT TRAINS

The new, larger UP was able to operate some nice long-distance freight services. A major addition to the schedule was the “Texas Expediter,” also sometimes called the “Texpediter,” which operated from Portland to Houston with blocks swapped at Hinkle, Pocatello, Cheyenne, Wichita, and Fort Worth. This train was afforded the highest priority on the system below the passenger trains and was one of the first to regularly add TOFC (trailer-on-flatcar) service.

In future articles, I hope to put together more detailed operational analyses, but those will be extremely tedious and will take a lot of time to prepare.

Next installment coming soon: Dereco, 1965

--

--