But wouldn't that fat mileage payment create an opportunity for the
regulated carrier to: a) avoid a capital investment on its books and the
attendant approval process and b) provide the shareholders equal to or
greater return (the greater return comes from non owning roads paying that
mileage fee)? Or were the milage fees and per diem payments roughly
equivalent?

Well, remember, Dave, all the OTHER carriers would have to agree, or
convince the ICC to permit it. I don't know that it was a FAT payment, but
if so, the ICC would certainly have had an input.
But I don't think this is something you can reason through. It is
probably largely history, as Garth Groff observed, and I would concur.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2942 Linden Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 http://www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroads and on Western history