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

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

I remember looking through annual reports to the stockholders and seeing things like the total miles of engines in yard service and thinking, my gosh, some clerk looked at all of those daily reports of engine formen, then figured out how far the switch engine moved that day and then totaled them all up! And they had it down to the mile. Anybody who has been on a yard job, knows they don't have a clue of how many miles you moved that day. A good engine foreman would make a lot fewer moves to get the same work done than a poor one.

--- On Wed, 1/16/13, Jpslhedgpeth@aol.com <Jpslhedgpeth@aol.com> wrote:

From: Jpslhedgpeth@aol.com <Jpslhedgpeth@aol.com>
Subject: Re: [CBQ] RE: [nburlingtonroute] The CB&Q and the REA
To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, January 16, 2013, 10:32 PM

 

This little conversation should help the "newbies" to the railroad business understand why it took  "battalions" of clerks in pre computer days to keep track of this stuff....Also  some clerk deep in the bowels of 547 W Jackson looked at and checked every ticket punched by a conductor and woe be unto that Con who didn't do it right.

 

No wonder those old branch line conductors were'nt' real excited to see Jim Christen and I on the platform with our grips waiting to ride with them on some obscure branch line local where no "ticket report" had been made for many moons.  On a few occasions they didn't even pick up our tickets..

 

On one occasion we heard the conductor growl to the agent..."They don't with us do they"....

 

Pete...with many memories of days long gone by

-----Original Message-----
From: John D. Mitchell, Jr. <cbqrr47@yahoo.com>
To: CBQ <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Jan 16, 2013 7:47 pm
Subject: RE: [CBQ] RE: [nburlingtonroute] The CB&Q and the REA

 

Charlie

That's not exactly how it worked. The railroad owned express reefers i.e. ATSF etc., were leased to REA not on a mileage basis but on a time basis. This is a so-called "gross lease". The owning railroad received no greater share of the express revenue when the reefers were operated over their lines. The revenue was allocated according to a complex formula. "Private owned" express reefers i.e. BREX,were on a "net lease" that is on a mileage basis, so indirectly the Q got a cut of the revenue.  In any event, the lessor paid for the car maintenance and got the deprecation. When a REA owned or leased reefer was handled in a Q train, it cost the Q nothing and the Q got it's express revenue.

John
--- On Wed, 1/16/13, 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: Wednesday, January 16, 2013, 3:42 PM

 

John-

Even if the Q made the determination that it wasn’t going to own or rent Express Reefers (BREX handling the “normal” freight reefer business) it still seems odd that they would not have the traffic (fruit, fish, ???) in REA-owned cars that the MILW and ATSF to name two similar roads had to the point that they felt they needed their own cars for.  
Charlie Vlk

 

 

 

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

 

__._,_.___

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

__,_._,___