Note: CP's American-built "International of Maine Division" cars served a similar purpose to the CPAA cars; some of the first 60' auto parts cars CP acquired for American service also wore this lettering, before the introduction of the CPAA reporting marks for marking US cars.
Builder's photo of CP 205540, built by Pullman-Standard and lettered for International of Maine division, with assignment stencil indicating "Return when empty to C&O Ry. Grand Blanc, Michigan"
http://canadianfreightcargallery.ca/cgi-bin/image.pl?i=cp205540&o=cprail
(later, cars from this series would be relabelled CPAA)
Chris van der Heide
My Algoma Central Railway Modeling Blog
7j43k My belief is that this strange setup was done for tax/accounting purposes.
My belief is that this strange setup was done for tax/accounting purposes.
Customs duties and import/export regulations due to operating in different countries.
Canadian cars can travel to the US, and American cars can travel to Canada, but because they haven't been imported, they can't just then stay across the border handling domestic shipments within the foreign country.
Regular CN and CP cars are Canadian cars. They could be used unrestricted within Canada, and they can cross the border into the US but had to go back to Canada after delivering their load.
CNA and CPAA cars were American-built or acquired, and NOT imported to Canada. They were treated like any other car from a US domestic railroad and could be used in US domestic service. CN and CP both had some operating lines within the US, and the majority of the early CNA/CPAA fleets included lots of automotive service cars (autoracks and parts boxcars) in pool service serving plants in the US. CN also made extensive use of [primarily] Michigan-based subsidiary Grand Trunk Western for American car fleets.
Later secondhand acquisitions of American ex RailBox and IPD shortline cars in the early-mid 1980s also mostly went into CNA & CPAA reporting marks and used for cross-border traffic. Again this would have avoided paying customs duties and import charges to bring them into Canada and the CNA/CPAA markings helped indicate their American "citizenship".
I'm not *entirely* sure of the arrangements that the CPI/CNIS "International Service only not to be loaded in domestic service in either country" cars addressed, but after NAFTA was signed use of these "I" markings fell out of favour and many cars were renumbered to regular CN and CP reporting marks.
Said purposes came. Then they went.
So, for a number of years, we have an assortment of reporting marks.
Ed
BRAKIEDoc, CN and CP cars was seen in the US long before NAFTA because NYC,C&O and several other roads went into Canada and interchanged cars freely.
Oh, I was well aware of that, Larry. I grew up in Hamilton, Ontario, and the city was served by CNR, CPR, NYC, and the home road, TH&B, which was under joint ownership of CPR and NYC. Because the city was the industrial hub of Canada, I saw freight cars from everywhere in North America, including Mexico. And, not too far from Hamilton was the NYC's CASO, basically a speedway for goods and passengers between Detroit and Buffalo. As a kid, of course, I didn't get to see too much of that, but was aware of it, and there's a very interesting thread on the CASO in the Classic Trains Forum.The business with CN and CNA/CNIS, and CP and CPAA, etc., was in place for a while, and it apparently regulated use of cars in conjunction with where they were built. As I understood it, those in international service could pick-up goods in their country of origin, but deliver them only to the other country. It sounds to me as if it was designed to keep a supply of certain cars for regular cross-border movements.
Wayne
doctorwayneI would guess, as mentioned, that those conditions would have been nullified by NAFTA. Wayne
Doc, CN and CP cars was seen in the US long before NAFTA because NYC,C&O and several other roads went into Canada and interchanged cars freely.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Speaking of CN rolling stock in the US, I saw a CN GP40-2W in the Wet Noodle Scheme in BNSF's Commerce Yard at one point.
That's pretty-much the explanation that I've read, too, although I can't locate my copy of it.
I would guess, as mentioned, that those conditions would have been nullified by NAFTA.
DSchmitt Canadian National CN, CNIS, CNA CN domestic cars, CPI international service cars built in Canada, CNA international service cars acquired in US Canadian Pacific CP, CPI, CPAA CP domestic car , CPI international service cars built in Canada, CPAA international service cars acquired in US What are the rules regarding operations of these cars in Canada and the US?
Canadian National CN, CNIS, CNA
CN domestic cars, CPI international service cars built in Canada, CNA international service cars acquired in US
Canadian Pacific CP, CPI, CPAA
CP domestic car , CPI international service cars built in Canada, CPAA international service cars acquired in US
What are the rules regarding operations of these cars in Canada and the US?
Well, there's what ARE the rules. And what WERE the rules. I suspect time and dates are involved. And NAFTA, most likely. Reporting marks come and go. And rules. At differing times.
Anyway, the ones with "I" in them are/were supposed to be used only in international service (between Canada and US). That means NOT in domestic service in either country.
The ones with "A" were American made, and could/can be in cross border service. And domestically, at least on one side of the border (which side--??).
There were also marks for Canadian made.........
Don't ask me for further explanations. I'm only extracting what some people wrote on MFCL.
Not sure about the car-handling rules, but the difference is mainly about avoiding taxes. There a fairly good short explanation here: http://www.procor.com/leasing-choosing-lease.html
Basically depends on whether a subsidiary's income is primarily Canadian or US based. If you go out of your tax system, it'll cost you, so use the cars acorrding to how the traffic is structured. Or something to that effect, I'm not a tax lawyer.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
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.