>>1234188>You're taking this awfully personallyNot really, you seem oddly personally invested in an argument where you are bringing no actual evidence to support your position, in the face of concrete evidence to the contrary.
>In other words he did what corporate executives in most industries do (hop around from one company to another, including competitors).Yes, it's extremely common for a chief executive to hop into the management of his previous employer's main rival and gut their most valuable asset. Happens all the time.
>Electrification didn't make sense in an era of cheap fuel.Yes, the 1970s is a decade notorious for its cheap petroleum fuels. Keep in mind that the decision to de-electrify was made in 1972, was forcibly postponed due to the 1973 OPEC embargo, and then it was still undertaken in spring of 1974 under Quinn's management. Really makes you think.
>Might be easier for me to believe there was a huge conspiracy to bankrupt the MILW if it was the only one that went bankrupt during that time, but it's far more credible that market forces pushed them out. This was a time of significant contraction in the railroad industry and, like a handful of other railroads, the Milwaukee Road was left without a chair when the music stopped.You don't even know anything about the system and still make these claims. The profitable part of the system was the electrified stretch out west, the money-losers were all the redundant lines in the corn-belt of the Midwest (pic related). And yet at the end of the day the profitable portion was abandoned to maintain the Midwestern money-pits. Those derailments referenced were entirely due to the poor experimental use of locotrol distributed power, btw. The actual physical plant was fine up to that point.
Just frustrated by your complete lack of argument backed by anything but conjecture about the failure of PC and RI that occurred around the same time, despite much different circumstances between all of them.