THOROUGHLY enjoyed reviewing April's "map of the month", well done...to whoever put that together. I didn't realize there were so few states in which G&W didn't not have some form of presence.
Looking at some of their segments, (Kyle and TPW, for instance, as well as TPW and CFE) if they could find some way to bridge between, they could become their own little self contained "Alphabet route" of sports...which certainly is thought provoking.
Elsewhere in the April issue is reported CSX's strategy to shed various routes, one in particular being the Cincinnati to Atlanta route. Anyone think G&W might have any interest in this (or other CSX) route? If G&W did annex the Sudetenland, could they give NS serious competition in their busy "Rathole" corridor?
Thanks. Always nice to hear positive feedback on the map, since they tend to be monsters to edit. Primary credit goes to Bill Metzger, our mapmaker, with thanks to Mike Williams, VP of corporate communications at G&W, for reviewing it and providing some additional information.
Convicted One ..........If G&W did annex the Sudetenland.......
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding Convicted One ..........If G&W did annex the Sudetenland....... Given G&W's business model that seems to work for them as being a short line operator, would they want to compete with the big boys on the big ball field?
Given G&W's business model that seems to work for them as being a short line operator, would they want to compete with the big boys on the big ball field?
Johnny
Murphy SidingGiven G&W's business model that seems to work for them as being a short line operator, would they want to compete with the big boys on the big ball field?
Good to hear from you MS, I was starting to think you might be mad at me. (been a while).
In a way, the premise behind this thread kinda keys into your "expanding or contracting?" thread.
Rarely do we anymore hear of end to end merger proposals where the intent is to expand territory. Seems like most of what we hear is more in line with parallel mergers designed to facilitate rationalization/eliminate competing corridors. So perhaps that tells us how those running the railroads might be inclined to answer your thread?
My gut is that anything CSX does spin off will have some form of restriction built in limiting the way any new operator might compete with CSX. Sort of like they did with C,F,&E when they leased out that line.
Nonetheless, the megalomanic expansionist that lurks deep inside me was salivating while reading the map in question, pondering just how hard it might be to relay the old Eel River line between Logansport and Columbia City, and have.... of all things, a workable bypass around Chicago.
I’ve always wondered what G&W might be able to do if they could bridge the gap between their line from Columbus to the Buffalo and Pittsburgh cluster.
Doing so would give them a network that would include Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Columbus, Cincinnati, Detroit, Indianapolis, Chicago and Peoria, which would be quite the regional.
Granted it would be mainly 25 MPH track, but solid track and steady transit times would get them a lot of bulk business.
As with all such references to G&W, The size of the British (and European) Freightliner operations and the Australian operations isn't clearly indicated.
I don't know the size of the Freightliner operation in the UK, but they own 126 of the 455 "class 66" JT42CWR locomotives in Britain, making them around the second largest freight operator in the UK.
By coincidence G&W Australia, after taking over the Australian operations of Freightliner and buying out the coal operation fleet of Glencore (which had always been run by Freightliner) G&W is the third biggest freight operator in Australia.
Peter
The Australian operations make G&W one of the last operators of locomotives with a bulldog nose in mainline service. The CLF/CLP class looks sharp in G&W orange and black.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.