I remember back in the 80s always seeing Cotton Belt and SP trains intermingled in So. California with the same color scheme on their locomotives.
Anyone know how those 2 companies were related?
Yes,SP gain control of Cotton Belt on April 14, 1932 and as you noted both wore the same paint scheme.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
BRAKIE Yes,SP gain control of Cotton Belt on April 14, 1932 and as you noted both wore the same paint scheme.
Is it coincidence that they had the same colors and paint scheme, or did SP repaint the engines? Why didn't SP just use their own lettering?
Because they were two different railroads and there are sometimes advantages of keeping the companies separate, one may have a better charter, one may have more restrictions, one may have a better credit rating, it may allow for better divisions of revenue, all sorts of reasons to keep them separate just as there may be many reasons to merge them.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
dehusman Because they were two different railroads and there are sometimes advantages of keeping the companies separate, one may have a better charter, one may have more restrictions, one may have a better credit rating, it may allow for better divisions of revenue, all sorts of reasons to keep them separate just as there may be many reasons to merge them.
"Is it coincidence that they had the same colors and paint scheme, or did SP repaint the engines? Why didn't SP just use their own lettering?"
Big Boy ForeverIs it coincidence that they had the same colors and paint scheme, or did SP repaint the engines? Why didn't SP just use their own lettering?"
Maybe I can put it in layman's terms.
The SP/CB was not merged SP controlled the CB through stock ownership and therefore they had to maintain separate idenities...
Had the SP/CB merged then SP could use one road name.
BRAKIE Big Boy Forever Is it coincidence that they had the same colors and paint scheme, or did SP repaint the engines? Why didn't SP just use their own lettering?" Maybe I can put it in layman's terms. The SP/CB was not merged SP controlled the CB through stock ownership and therefore they had to maintain separate idenities... Had the SP/CB merged then SP could use one road name.
Big Boy Forever Is it coincidence that they had the same colors and paint scheme, or did SP repaint the engines? Why didn't SP just use their own lettering?"
Howabout the having the same paint scheme and colors, was that coincidence?
Big Boy ForeverHowabout the having the same paint scheme and colors, was that coincidence?
No..That was the SP paint scheme so,they painted the CB units to match the parent company-like a "family scheme"..Think GWI family of short lines that shares the same colors but has their own identity.
When I was growing up in Tucson in the early 1990s I remember seeing Southern Pacific and Cotton Belt locomotives. On rare occasions I did see Santa Fe and Union Pacific.
After Southern Pacific took control of the SSW in the '30s. It ever had a separate paint scheme making it a forgotten fallen flag.
Amtrak America, 1971-Present.
My understanding is that they were kept separate due to either a court case (Possibly the Ogden Gateway Case) or due to a traffic agreement with UP that may have involved PFE. In any case, SP under whatever arrangement this involved was not allowed to solicit eastbound traffic from north of central California for its Sunset Route -- this had to go over UP via Ogden. SP was able to get around this by having SSW, a separate railroad, solicit this traffic via LA and Texas. When UP and SP merged, there was no reason to continue this arrangement.
My source for this is a somewhat muddled thread on a Yahoo group -- if anyone has additional info, it would be most appreciated.
Texas had a law that in essence required railroads that operated in Texas to be incorporated in Texas. Several railroads that operated into Texas were therefore obligated to create, or acquire, one or more domestic Texas railroads to continue their line into the state. The Cotton Belt served that function for the SP; similarly the Missouri Pacific acquired the International - Great Northern (not to be confused with the Great Northern of Empire Builder fame). Texas had similar requirements made of many big industries, including insurance, which is why many of the big national insurers did not do business in Texas until the laws changed in the 1950s.
The consequence of all this was that Texans had and in some ways still have a rather provincial dislike or distrust of big business unless it has some sort of solid Texas connection.
Dave Nelson
JOHN BRUCE III My understanding is that they were kept separate due to either a court case (Possibly the Ogden Gateway Case) or due to a traffic agreement with UP that may have involved PFE. In any case, SP under whatever arrangement this involved was not allowed to solicit eastbound traffic from north of central California for its Sunset Route -- this had to go over UP via Ogden. SP was able to get around this by having SSW, a separate railroad, solicit this traffic via LA and Texas. When UP and SP merged, there was no reason to continue this arrangement. My source for this is a somewhat muddled thread on a Yahoo group -- if anyone has additional info, it would be most appreciated.
Actually they retain separate identities because they was not merged.SP held the controlling stock like C&O did B&O.
Even under Chessie C&O,B&O/WM was not merge.
SP/CB merger happen in the 90s.
http://www.american-rails.com/cotton-belt.html
Here is the discussion of the Ogden Gateway Case on the Utah Rails site:
"In return for supporting Southern Pacific's control of Central Pacific, UP in 1923 won an agreement with SP to send traffic via the Overland Route through Ogden. This pact became known as the "Santa Margarita Agreement." It stated that all eastbound traffic originating north of Santa Margarita, at the south end of California's Salinas Valley, would travel by way of Ogden. With the agreement in place, SP was forced to furnish a dependable amount of rail traffic to Union Pacific at the Ogden Gateway, with a small bit going to D&RGW to satisfy the ICC government regulators. The ICC decided in Southern Pacific's favor in 1923, giving it control of CP but insisting that Southern Pacific solicit traffic for the Overland Route, via Ogden, for interchange with Union Pacific there. (ICC Docket 2613, SP control of CP, approved February 6, 1923, in 76 ICC 508)"
As Mr Husman points out, companies may merge or not merge, but it's the reasons they do or don't that are interesting. The ability get around the prohibition on soliciting traffic via the Sunset Route looks like a very credible reason for keeping SSW separate.
The main SP Texas subsidiary, by the way, was the T&NO. The SSW was a St Louis headquartered railroad that had its own Texas subsidiary.
JOHN BRUCE IIIThe main SP Texas subsidiary, by the way, was the T&NO. The SSW was a St Louis headquartered railroad that had its own Texas subsidiary.
Which in turn became a subsidiary of the SP when SP took control of the CB..That is a historical fact.
Why SP/CB did not merge will need to be researched through the corporate and ICC archives.
JOHN BRUCE III Here is the discussion of the Ogden Gateway Case on the Utah Rails site: "In return for supporting Southern Pacific's control of Central Pacific, UP in 1923 won an agreement with SP to send traffic via the Overland Route through Ogden. This pact became known as the "Santa Margarita Agreement." It stated that all eastbound traffic originating north of Santa Margarita, at the south end of California's Salinas Valley, would travel by way of Ogden. With the agreement in place, SP was forced to furnish a dependable amount of rail traffic to Union Pacific at the Ogden Gateway, with a small bit going to D&RGW to satisfy the ICC government regulators. The ICC decided in Southern Pacific's favor in 1923, giving it control of CP but insisting that Southern Pacific solicit traffic for the Overland Route, via Ogden, for interchange with Union Pacific there. (ICC Docket 2613, SP control of CP, approved February 6, 1923, in 76 ICC 508)"
When the Southern Pacific acquired the St Louis-Kansas City-Santa Rosa NM section of the former Rock Island, actual ownership was by the Cotton Belt. One of the commonly held reasons for this was that the SSW did not have to solicit traffic through the Ogden Gateway.
Another, probably more of a minor consideratin, was that SSW and RI used the same rule book, the Uniform Code of Operating Rules. The RI people who became SSW employees would have had an easy transitition in that respect.
I'm sure besides not having to comply with Ogden Gateway protocols there were tax and other advantages to keeping SSW a separate subsidiary.
Jeff
Save for lettering the Cotton Belt did not have an identical paint scheme to Espee until the first quarter of 1966. Prior to that date you had a number of paint schemes that were unique to the Cotton Belt.
Cotton Belt's headquarters was moved to Tyler, Texas in 1955.
Cotton Belt was merged into Espee in 1992 as the UP takeovers of many lines had negated any marketing benefit of Cotton Belt.
The Cotton Belt was a cash cow for the Southern Pacific. Cotton Belt owned 94 tunnel motors and had no tunnels. During the later 1950s and into the 1960s the Cotton Belt had one of the lowest operating ratios in the railroad business.
SSW9389Save for lettering the Cotton Belt did not have an identical paint scheme to Espee until the first quarter of 1966. Prior to that date you had a number of paint schemes that were unique to the Cotton Belt.
I've seen several CB GP9s in SP's "Black Widow" scheme..
Was that a experiential thing?
http://espee.railfan.net/nonindex/gp09_photos/0821_ssw-gp9-rob_sarberenyi.jpg
The first six Cotton Belt GP9s #820-825, were delivered in Black Widow paint in October 1957. They were identical to the Espee scheme save for their yellow handrails. No Cotton Belt units had white handrails until the first quarter of 1966. The second set of Cotton Belt GP9s #826-831 were delivered in Bloody Nose paint in February 1959, but still with the yellow handrails.
SSW9389 The first six Cotton Belt GP9s #820-825, were delivered in Black Widow paint in October 1957. They were identical to the Espee scheme save for their yellow handrails. No Cotton Belt units had white handrails until the first quarter of 1966. The second set of Cotton Belt GP9s #826-831 were delivered in Bloody Nose paint in February 1959, but still with the yellow handrails.
Ahh! Thank you! Great information.
I've always been a closet fan of SP/CB but,leaned more toward CB then SP..Trains Magazine had a story on CB's Blue Streak freight train and that caught my fancy.
The various paint schemes were not expermental. They were the standard for their time. While not identical, the Cotton Belt paint schemes fom the 1950's on were heavily insluenced by SP standards
Passenger Diesels:
ALCO PA-1, 2-units (300 and 301) deliveredfrom builder Nov 28, 1949. "SP Daylight" paint scheme with minor differences. Initally had black roofs and were lettered "ST.LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN" Repainted "Bloody Nose" 1958? Leased to SP 1960 and lettered "SOUTHERN PACIFIC"
Electro-Motive FP7, 1-unit (330) delivered April 1950, "Daylight" scheme, -Incidently SP didn't recieve FP7's until 1953 and they never wore "Daylight" colors-. #330 was renumbered 306 in early 1952 and repainted to :Bloody Nose" in late 1958. Leased to SP in 1960 and relettered "Southern Pacific"
Electro-Motive GP7 1-unit (320) June 1950, "Daylight" paint scheme. Renumbered to 304 in 1952 Repainted to a variation of "Black Widow" by 1959.
Freight Cab Units:
Baldwin Centercab,1-unit (260) delivered 1948 in gray and yellow
Electro-Motive FT, 3 four unit sets (ABBA) delivered June 1944, 2 four unit sets delivered July 1945, Color scheme light grey, armour yellow with red pinstriping. Repainted in a variation of "Black Widow" after 1947
Electro-Motive F7 purchased 1950-1953 26 A-units, 16 B-units. Paint scheme "Black Widow", repainted "Bloody Nose" after SP adopted that scheme in 1958.
Freight Hood Units:
ALCO RS3, (311-318) delivered in 1951 Black and orange switcher paint, (308-310) delivered in 1952 "Black Widow"
ALCO RSD5 (370-372)delivered 1853 in "Black Widow"
Electro-Motive GP9 6-units (820-825) delivered 1957 in "Black Widow" 6-units (826-831) delivered 1958 in "Bloody Nose"
Latter locomotives all "Bloody Nose scheme
Alco D-600B 10-units 1960, Electro-Motive GP20 20-units 1960-61, GP30 10-units 1963, GP35 22-units 1964, GP40 8-units 1966, SD45 39-units 1968-70. SD45T-2 9-units 1972 (Worked on SP out of Rosevile so rarely seen on Cotton Belt)
Switchers: Black and ornge switcher scheme not the same as SP and they never had Tiger Stripes"
Baldwin VO-1000 23 -units (1000-1022) delivered 1942-45. Paint schene as delivered a variation of Atlanti Coast Line royal purple and aluninum. Later repainted to black and orange switcher scheme,
Baldwin 608NA, 5-units (1023-1027) 1947 delivered in in light gray and yellow with red pin stripes
Electro-Motive NW2 4-units (1050-1054) delivered 1949 in gray and yellow
Electro Motive SW7 4-units (1054-1057) delivered April 1950 in black and orange switcher scheme
SW9 4-units (1058-1061) delivered Dec1951-Jan 1952 black and orange, SW1200 17-units (1062-1078) 1964-66 "Bloody Nose", SW1500 36-units delivered 1968-71 "Bloddy Nose"
--------
Information is from Cotton Belt Locomotives by Joseph A. Strapac. Book available through Amazon.com New $20 and up, Used $15 and up. My brie synopsis doesen't do justice to the information in the book.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
Big Boy Forever I remember back in the 80s always seeing Cotton Belt and SP trains intermingled in So. California with the same color scheme on their locomotives. Anyone know how those 2 companies were related?
SSW did not have tracks or trackage rights in California. All of those trains were SP trains, some just had SSW locomotives (some may have even had all SSW locomotives).
"No soup for you!" - Yev Kassem (from Seinfeld)
yes they are actually one company.