We're sure wandering off the Burlington Route subject,
but the Missouri Pacific had something like 20 Texas
subsidiaries (not including the T&P), of which the I-GN
was only one. Others included the New Orleans, Texas
and Mexico; the St. Louis, Brownsville and Mexico; San
Antonio, Uvalde and Gulf; The Beaumont, Sour Lake and
Western; the Houston and Brazos Valley; The Sugar Land
Railway Company; and many others.
As you correctly note, they owned a majority of
the T&P, but by no means all of it; perhaps a smaller
proportion than the CB&Q did of the C&S/FW&DC.
Wes Leatherock
wleath@s...
On Sat, 24 Mar 2001, John Mitchell <cbqrr47@y...> wrote:
> It was the reason they continued so long. Also the MP
> only owned a slight majority of T&P stock. Their Texas
> company was the International- Great Northern!
> John D. Mitchell
> --- Wes Leatherock <wleath@s...> wrote:
> >
> > Such a law did exist, but is probably not the
> > reason that
> > either the FW&DC or the T&P were originally
> > incorporated in
> > Texas. They were originally Texas promotions and
> > incorporated
> > in Texas just because that's where they began.
> >
> >
> > Wes Leatherock
> > wleath@s...
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, M. Thayer wrote:
> > > As I understand it, at the time the Fort
> > Worth-Denver line was built, Texas
> > > had a law requiring any railroad operating in the
> > state to have corporate
> > > offices within Texas. This was also the reason
> > why the Texas & Pacific was
> > > separate from the MoPac.
> > >
> > > Marshall
|