General Discussion

 Today's 11/07 Wall Street Journal has a two page article on Buffett as today's Vanderbilt.

 Also an article on Railroads and Windmills: Berkshire's Green Bet.

Jay

garr:

 Today's 11/07 Wall Street Journal has a two page article on Buffett as today's Vanderbilt.

 Also an article on Railroads and Windmills: Berkshire's Green Bet.

 

Jay

I went out and bought the Weekend Journal to read this story. 

It has an interesting, fairly large, ilustration.  The llustation is a night shot of Union Pacific Locomotive #825, a Northern, heading up train #21.  (Anybody know anything about UP #21?  I don't)

So anyway, that's an interesting choice for an illustration of an article comparing The Commodore with Warren Buffett.   The railroads actually involved are legendary.  (The New York Central, Santa Fe, Great Northern, Northern Pacific, Frisco, SP&S, Burlington Route.)   So they illustrate the story with a Union Pacific photo. 

The Union Pacific is not now, and never was, involved in this.  I understand Buffett owns some UP stock, but aside from that, they're not involved.  Hey, I guess any old (and in this case they realy went "old") train would do.

Jay, Greyhounds,

One does wonder why they didnt use a pic of his RR for the article???  

Buffett's acquisition of the BNSF has brought out some of the more clueless aspects of even the best of our business press, given the commentary I have read so far.  They don't understand the "canary in the mineshaft" role of railroads in the economy, and can only see if from as aspect of quaintness, which explains that photo chosen for the article.

Today's NYTImes had an article that felt the need to ask the question, what is a foamer, as if there is no meaningful distinction between the railfan (who I agree can seem like an odd duck to the uninitiated) and a person who thinks a mega railroad like the BNSF might be a way to make quite a bit of money.

Dave Nelson

greyhounds:

(Anybody know anything about UP #21?  I don't)

Yes, Greyhounds, I had the answer on the floor by my computer (I used to live in organized confusion; now I just live in confusion). The June, 1943, issue of the Guide shows that at that time, UP 21 and 22 were the Pacific Limited, which was then handled by the C&NW east of Omaha (a few years earlier, the MILW forwarded the train to Omaha and took the eastbound cars to Chicago, as I recall). East of Cheyenne, 21 & 22 carried Chicago-Oakland and Chicago LA cars. West of Cheyenne, the LA cars were carried in 23 & 24, also called the Pacific Limited,  and ran from Kansas City to LA. This section also had KC-Portland and KC-LA cars (no KC-Oakland cars). Westbound from Cheyenne, #21 and #25 (Portland section of the Pacific Limited) ran on the same schedule as far as Green River, where #25 took off for the Pacific Northwest. Eastbound, all three trains ran on separate schedules to Cheyenne.

I am sure that the UP had many variations, but we can safely say that 21 & 22 were the Pacific Limited, which ran to the West Coast.

Perhaps the WSJ ran that picture so you would ask?

Johnny

dknelson:

  [snip; emphasis added - PDN]  Today's NYTImes had an article that felt the need to ask the question, what is a foamer, as if there is no meaningful distinction between the railfan (who I agree can seem like an odd duck to the uninitiated) and a person who thinks a mega railroad like the BNSF might be a way to make quite a bit of money.

Dave Nelson

Unlike my earlier more beneficient years, I am now all in favor of letting them - both the press and "the uninitiated" - continue on in their blithe ignorance of that distinction - and you should be, too.  Less competition for us in trying to cash in on that opportunity, you know. 

Johnny - you certainly seem to be getting good use out of those Guides.  Thanks for looking that up and sharing all those details - bet you never knew they had an operation that complex, did you ?  I know I didn't.  Maybe I'll see if there's one for sale at the Allentown Train Meet [show] next weekend . . .

- Paul North.

Paul_D_North_Jr:

Johnny - you certainly seem to be getting good use out of those Guides.  Thanks for looking that up and sharing all those details - bet you never knew they had an operation that complex, did you ?  I know I didn't.  Maybe I'll see if there's one for sale at the Allentown Train Meet [show] next weekend . . .

Thank you, Paul. The UP had great variations in its passenger operations, some of which can surprise us. One practice which my wife and I appreciate greatly was that of letting the City of Portland pass and run ahead of a freight it had overtaken. We say that we were introduced to one another by that freight train.

Except for some of the reprinted issues that I have, I bought some of the Guides, particularly the older ones, that I have before I married--others were given me by agents--and devoured them (but did not digest all that I devoured)--and I had little opportunity to share the knowledge in them until I began participating in these forums. From time to time, I also bought many employee (and a few public) timetables until, several years ago, I decided that this was becoming expensive and I declared a moratorium on buying more. Two years ago, when we were in the museum in Sacramento, my wife noticed that I was looking at some timetables published by a non-railroad company, and offered to pay for what I wanted. I took her up on the offer.

I am always glad to share the knowledge found in these publications, especially when another participant asks for information.

Johnny

Deggesty:

greyhounds:

(Anybody know anything about UP #21?  I don't)

Yes, Greyhounds, I had the answer on the floor by my computer (I used to live in organized confusion; now I just live in confusion). The June, 1943, issue of the Guide shows that at that time, UP 21 and 22 were the Pacific Limited, which was then handled by the C&NW east of Omaha (a few years earlier, the MILW forwarded the train to Omaha and took the eastbound cars to Chicago, as I recall). East of Cheyenne, 21 & 22 carried Chicago-Oakland and Chicago LA cars. West of Cheyenne, the LA cars were carried in 23 & 24, also called the Pacific Limited,  and ran from Kansas City to LA. This section also had KC-Portland and KC-LA cars (no KC-Oakland cars). Westbound from Cheyenne, #21 and #25 (Portland section of the Pacific Limited) ran on the same schedule as far as Green River, where #25 took off for the Pacific Northwest. Eastbound, all three trains ran on separate schedules to Cheyenne.

I am sure that the UP had many variations, but we can safely say that 21 & 22 were the Pacific Limited, which ran to the West Coast.

Perhaps the WSJ ran that picture so you would ask?

Johnny

Thanks Johnny. 

A your post indicates, a lot of the US rail passenger network did not consist of point to point trains.  Trains like the Pacific LImited had multiple origins and destinaitons.  It all got sorted out in places like Cheyenne where trains were broken apart and put back together in short order.

I don't have a 1943 Official Guide, but I've got one from 1956.  Even in '56 this was still being done.  It was an amazing network that moved people, mail and express very well.  (and employed a lot of switch crews.)

I read the article this weekend. While I appreciated all the railroad history in my Wall Street Journal, I don't really see the comparison between Buffet and Vanderbilt. It did, however, give me an excuse to do some research of Vanderbilt this week and maybe pick up a biography for some future writing.

Also, I didn't even think to check for the railroad on that steam picture until I came here. Guess I'll have to turn in my railroad geek card...

Looshi:

  I read the article this weekend. While I appreciated all the railroad history in my Wall Street Journal, I don't really see the comparison between Buffet and Vanderbilt. [snip]

Thank you    for making that point.  I have to wonder if the WSJ is pulling our leg in that regard - or are they really that clueless ?  Long story short, my understanding from various texts and references - since I'm not on personal terms with either gentleman - is that the Commodore was very actively involved in and appeared to enjoy the nuts-and-bolts and nefarious cut-throat competitive activities and business ethics of the day - including stitching together many little railroads to create the New York Central System, but chiefly limiting himself to transportation enterprises - while Buffett is very 'hands-off' and although he acquires many companies, does nothing to merge or integrate them, and lets them continue to operate autonomously.  Actually, an article on the myriad differences between Buffett and the Commodore would be more legitimate and informative, I think.  Didn't the WSJ article explore that aspect at all ?

I missed the WSJ article.  The paper was discarded before I had a chance to read it.  The weekend edition features a weekly op ed piece by Peggy Noonan which is a great look at the past week's political happenings.

I have absolutely no problem with journalists who are not die in the wool railfans.  It is not their job to understand every aspect of the industry or hobby. 

There are transportation analysts who are capable of providing the nuts and bolts of the industry.

ed

We live in a world where parents still say to their kids, "look at the choo-choo," and the two locomotives almost anyone (of the general public) can cite are PM 1225 (as characterized in "The Polar Express") and Thomas - both steam.

Add to that stock photos and the fact that most people don't even realize that there are several railroads (as in companies) in this country, and it's no wonder they don't have a clue.  (We won't get in to runthrough and leased power and the lack of cabeese.)

As for Buffet and the Commodore - perhaps the commonality is that both can be called "tycoons."