New York Central, the Pennsylvania, and their successor Conrail all had great PR and strong public images - but now they're gone.
dd
Does a railroad's identity(company name and/or paint scheme)have anything to do with it's profits?
What about the Santa Fe when they brought back the red and silver warbonnet scheme?Sure seemed to do a lot for their bottom line.And when the Great Northern wanted to revamp their image in 1967,just in case the Hill Lines merger was denied again as it was since the original GN/NP proposal in 1893,the advertising firm they hired advised keeping the company's 70 year old herald(tho modernized).Then there is the Union Pacific,historical name with a paint scheme dating back almost to it's first diesel locomotives(more a heritage thing,than a service or great railroad image).Could such companies have more impact on the economies of the territory they serve?
What about the commodities the railroad carries?Great Northern was big on grain and lumber shipments.Burlington Northern will be remembered for hauling coal to feed midwestern and southwestern power plants.Santa Fe had a very good intermodal traffic share.But then there is the question of consistancy of income.Coal is a year round thing,as are retail goods and warehousing.Agricultural and forest commodities are seasonal and even subject to foreign policy changes and economic demands.
What other railroads had notable public images throughout the 1960's and 70's? Could they have survived without the mergers of those decades based on their public image and traffic base?
Have a good one.
Bill B
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.