Why does Pan Am(and Guilford) use MEC, B&M, and other reporting marks rather than creating they're own?
Harrison
Homeschooler living In upstate NY a.k.a Northern NY.
Modeling the D&H in 1978.
Route of the famous "Montreal Limited"
My YouTube
HarrisonWhy does Pan Am(and Guilford) use MEC, B&M, and other reporting marks rather than creating they're own?
Because they can - they own MEC and BM, and probably some others.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Therein lies a lot of history. The Wikipedia article on Pan Am Railways provides a lot of backdrop. It comes the closest to answering the question, indirectly, in the subsection titled "Pan Am Railways (2006 - present)", second paragraph. Much has to do with management desire from early-on to maintain or get around labor agreements, and there were no doubt other legal considerations against consolidating the various railroads that made up Guilford into one neat corporate package. Not to mention simply the cost of doing so.
As The Ferro Kid mentioned cost, if what you have works, why go to the expense of repainting all the equipment? We could ask, "Why does the UP have cars with the Omaha Road marks?"
Johnny
Or, more to the point, why didn't Chessie System have its own reporting mark instead of hanging onto C&O, B&O, and WM? If you go into the Equipment Registers, you'll find that B&M and MEC are still separate railroads, just as the components of the Chessie System were.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
CShaveRR Or, more to the point, why didn't Chessie System have its own reporting mark instead of hanging onto C&O, B&O, and WM? If you go into the Equipment Registers, you'll find that B&M and MEC are still separate railroads, just as the components of the Chessie System were.
CShaveRROr, more to the point, why didn't Chessie System have its own reporting mark instead of hanging onto C&O, B&O, and WM? If you go into the Equipment Registers, you'll find that B&M and MEC are still separate railroads, just as the components of the Chessie System were.
Chessie System was a marketing 'monicker' - it had no ownership value. B&O, C&O and WM were the ownership companies and as such their identities were affixed to the equipment that was in each companies ownership 'bucket'.
Until the formation of CSX Transportation my paychecks came from the B&O Railroad, not Chessie System. While CSX was created 11/1/80 - CSX Transportation wasn't created until 7/1/86 when the ownership interests of B&O, C&O and WM were merged into it.
When Conrail was split, cars that went to CSX got NYC reporting marks, and those that went to NS got PRR markings.
MidlandMike When Conrail was split, cars that went to CSX got NYC reporting marks, and those that went to NS got PRR markings.
Correction to this: Freight equipment inherited by NS from the Conrail split remained lettered CR; it was not relettered PRR.
CShaveRR MidlandMike When Conrail was split, cars that went to CSX got NYC reporting marks, and those that went to NS got PRR markings. Correction to this: Freight equipment inherited by NS from the Conrail split remained lettered CR; it was not relettered PRR.
Unless it was equipment that contained a CR predecessor reporting mark (which some equipment still did) that was going to NS as opposed to CSX. CR equipment that was identified as CR and going to NS did not get the PRR treatment.
However, a lot of the former ConRail real estate that went to NS is owned by an entity called "Pennsylvania Lines LLC".
Sort of reminiscent of the old PRR, whose tracks west of Pittsburgh(? or Fort Wayne?) were known as "Lines West".
- PDN.
Not quite the same, although PRR's corporate structure was incredibly complex. The "Lines East" and "Lines West" monikers were more of an operating arrangement than separate corporate structures. A separate corporate entity for non-railroad real estate was probably established to keep that entity beyond the purview of the ICC or STB.
Deggesty As The Ferro Kid mentioned cost, if what you have works, why go to the expense of repainting all the equipment? We could ask, "Why does the UP have cars with the Omaha Road marks?"
CShaveRR Or, more to the point, why didn't Chessie System have its own reporting mark instead of hanging onto C&O, B&O, and WM? If you go into the Equipment Registers, you'll find that B&M and MEC are still separate railroads, just as the components of the Chessie System were. In other words, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
In other words, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Reporting marks don't tell you anything about whether the marks on the car represent an existing "separate" railraod. There are many examples of railcars with the reporting marks of railroads that have long been merged out. In this case, the "old" reporting marks are considered the marks of the surviving railroad. The "hard copy" Equipment Registers of yore specifically showed "old" marks like this as the marks of the surviving railroad (for example "SP" would be shown as a "UP" reporting mark). I assume the electronic versions of the Register are similar. Roads may use "old" reporting marks for various reasons - not just becuase they haven't got around to relettering "old" cars. For example, the "old" road cars may be subject to different financing arrangements and need to retain their separate identities. Again, the Omaha Road (CMO) marked cars on UP I mentioned in my earlier reply were built many years after the Omaha Road was gone as a separate railroad.
[/quote]
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.