RE: [CBQ] RE: [nburlingtonroute] The CB&Q and the REA

["John D. Mitchell, Jr." <cbqrr47@yahoo.com>]

Charlie

The Q was not in the refrigerator car business, period. They did not deem it profitable to lease cars to the REA. Dollars and cents made the difference. The rate of return on investment of leased express reefers was poor. Remember the Q was a very WELL managed company.

John

--- On Tue, 1/15/13, Charlie Vlk <cvlk@comcast.net> wrote:

From: Charlie Vlk <cvlk@comcast.net>
Subject: RE: [CBQ] RE: [nburlingtonroute] The CB&Q and the REA
To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, January 15, 2013, 6:05 PM

 

My question still stands…..

…..when I was working on the Broadway Limited GACX Express Reefer project, I noticed that many roads had Express Reefers…..either apparently leased from General American of a common design (SOO, MP, CRI&P), or of their own design and ownership (like the PRR, NP, GN).

Looking at pictures of Q passenger trains you see NP and GN cars on the line to the Twin Cities and a few REA cars on the headend on other trains.   Why did the Q not have express reefers like other roads, either leased or owned?

They traversed similar territories as roads that did have them (CRI&P, MILW).

BREX may be a complicating factor, but then they didn’t have many either (the steel jobs that had the “cream” compartment or not).

I know that some secondary trains (like the Coloradoan) had REA express reefers in the consist….were they more common than I think?

Charlie Vlk

 

__._,_.___

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___