Talk:Canadian National Railway

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 173.123.200.144 (talk) at 14:28, 25 April 2012 (→‎Ownership). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

official names --> Railway vs. Railways

Is there any significance in the difference between Canadian National Railways and Canadian National Railway? Did they just feel the plural a tad too long? --Menchi 20:14, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'd say on the surface it was largely to appear more modern, new image, brand etc. BUT you have to remember Canadian National Railways was a company headquartered in Montreal and not oblivious to Quebec politics. Quebecers were embracing post-modernism throughout the 40's and 50's in an effort to get away from the stiffling confines of institutions dominated by the Roman Catholic Church.
Also, following Quebec premier Maurice Duplessis's death in office in 1959, his successor(s) lost the 1960 election to Jean Lesage, largely based on the growing discontent of the Quebec populace at the Anglicization (sp?) of their culture and the tremendous English control of their economy. The Revolution Tranquille (Quiet Revolution) refers to many of the reforms that Lesage placed in the 60's which transformed the province.
It's hardly a coincidence that CNR, an English name and a federally owned Crown corp, decided to change to a bilingually appropriate name at this time - Canadian National/Canadien National with the acronym CN which worked in both languages. Kind of like how Eaton's in English Canada had to change to Eaton in Quebec or today how we have The Home Depot in English Canada vs. Home Depot in Quebec (and New Brunswick).
Overall though, it's probably a combination of factors. Canadian railways were VERY slow to dieselize compared to their US counterparts. It was only in the early 60's that the last steam locomotives were used in revenue service on CN and CP. With diesels, you needed to paint them (usually with a splashy corporate logo and colours) and the original olive & green paint scheme was considered tired and pretty old school by the 60's so the new paint scheme with the new "squiggly worm" corporate logo - whose design is still viewed by many logo designers and historians world-wide as one of the most signficant logo designs in history - all coincided to drop CNR in lieu of CN.
You also have to remember that CNR by the post-war era was no longer a CNR - that is an amalgamation of railways, as it had been set up to do in the 1920s - so with the company having entrenched its operations to the extent that it did, it was no longer a collection of railways but a railway. Also, CN was more than just a railway as it owned Trans-Canada Airlines, vast communication networks, shipping lines and ferries, etc.
I feel like I've confused the issue a bit more! :-)
In short: 1) post-modernity (or is modernity), 2) logo, corporate image, etc., 3) bilingualism, Quebec-based company, etc., 4) no longer just a railway but more like a holding company for various government agencies/companies, etc.
Cheers, Plasma east 17:17, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The CNR was formed from the Canadian Government Railways. Order-in-Council PC 3122 dated December 20, 1918 gave the plural name Canadian National Railways. However, the Canadian National Railway Company was incorporated by Parliament June 6, 1919 which was proclaimed by Order-in-council PC2094 dated October 4, 1922. It would appear that Canadian National Railways was the marketing name since it consisted of several merged railways, but only an examination of the legal texts would confirm the issue. --142.154.32.57 01:04, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I am pretty new the Michigan, previously I lived in Maryland. Seeing CN Rolling stock where I was in Maryland was pretty rare the majority were CSX and Conrail. Naturally, now that I came to Michigan I see them all the time. I was wondering what the deal was with the Canadian/Canadien thing was. At first I thought it was a mistake at the repaint shop, then I was wondering how they could let so many mistakes slip by. Now I know. It must be a French thing. --Dp67 | QSO | Sandbox | UBX's 15:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who took over whom 1918 - CNoR or CGR?

I am sceptical of the statement that the CNoR was asked to manage the Canadian Government Railways. It seems more likely that CGR would take over the bankrupt CNoR just as it had the National Transcontinental Railway. Is this a reference to the CNoR's D.B. Hanna being asked to take a management role in the new Canadian National Railways by the Minister of Railway and Canals? Needs to be investigated.--142.154.32.57 01:13, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On November 20, 1918, the Canadian government took over the CNoR. It then entrusted the management of the CGR, which it already owned, to the CNoR board of directors. JYolkowski 00:40, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Passenger Trains

Is there any interest in adding a passage somewhere about CN's historical passenger trains? There is an article now (albeit a crappy bare stub) on the Super Continental. Anybody out there up for buffing up the stub and linking to there from here? CN fans need to rise to the occasion - the article for The Canadian is much better developed. Fawcett5 03:46, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Stock market information

I noticed that TSX and NYSE information was added to this entry, and to the Canadian Pacific Railway entry - it would probably be more appropriate to place this information with the corporate owners of the respective railways: Canadian National Railway Company and Canadian Pacific Railway Limited, where the TSX and NYSE categories have already been added... Just a thought.Plasma east 05:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Passenger service in Newfoundland

I notice that an anon just added something to the article indicating that passenger service in Newfoundland ended in 1969. Is that true? I know that CN discontinued its major Newfoundland passenger service sometime in July of that year, but I was under the impression that passenger service was provided on branch lines (via mixed trains, mostly) after that point. JYolkowski // talk 13:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Correct, July 2, 1969 was the last day of the "Newfie Bullet" passenger train, however mixed (freight and passenger)trains continued for many years on three branchlines. Carbonear and Bonavista Mixed service ended in August 1983. Argentia Mixed ended September 19, 1984. The Corner Brook Mixed ended Sept. 30,1988 and abandonment followed with dismantling begun Oct. 1988.
R.L.Kennedy 20:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
And CNR passenger service ended in Oct. 1968 in Prince Edward Island, if I recall correctly. Would have to read back issues of Canadian Rail or Branchline to confirm though. Pass. rail service was bustituted, same as Nfld. Plasma east 15:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diesel Locomotives

What is the basis for the statement that early diesels were a failure? Is it merely the fact more were not built?

There were plenty of Fairbanks-Morse units as well as GMD and MLW/Alco units. Passenger units included F-M in addition to those models listed and in addition there were a number of GMD-1 passenger units.

R.L.Kennedy 20:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Various

Regarding the order of control etc. Canadian Government Railways was entrusted to the directors of the Canadian Northern Railway for operation purposes. P.C. 2854, November 20, 1918.

P.C. 3122 December 20, 1918 was Authority for use of the name Canadian National Railways to designate operation procedure of Canadian Northern Railway and the entrusted Canadian Government Railways

9-10 Geo. V, Chap 13 1919 Consolidation of lines constituting Canadian Northern Railway System, the Canadian Government Railways and all railways that are, or may become, the property of the Dominion of Canada.

U.S, Subsidiaries

Grand Trunk Eastern was an informal name, however, legally it was still the Grand Trunk Railway since a Canadian government entity could not legally exist or operate in a foreign country.

This also applied at the Niagara Frontier where CNR trains ran into the US at Niagara Falls, Ontario and New York. It was only about a mile or so of track. I recall seeing a steam locomotive working in the area clearly lettered Grand Trunk. This would have been a requirement in regards to Customs for equipment going into the country etc.

R.L.Kennedy 03:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nationalization. Re: the recent change. I think you are getting off track here. The Great War (WWI) was over before the CNR came into being. It was the bankruptcy of GTR and CNoR that brought about the CNR not a desire to nationalize, otherwise the CPR would have taken over. That is nationalization.
R.L.Kennedy 00:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article rewrite

It's been well over a year since the current format of the article was established with the expanded info. Since that time the format many of the rail-related articles on companies, etc. have been improved signficantly. The content, while more-or-less correct, could stand to be edited for better flow, less wordy, etc. and make more use of the CNR images collection at the Nat. Museum of Science & Tech. (public domain - fairuse), etc. I think it's high-time for this entry on CNR to get agressive treatment as a collaboration project - any thoughts by others? Plasma east 15:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think it could use a rewrite. There's a lot of good information there, but it's kind of disorganized, and there's a lot of information from the past 10 years but little for the preceding 70. P.S. There are a couple of interesting public domain images to be found here: [1]. JYolkowski // talk 23:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, a greater emphasis needs to be made on the history. I'll see what I can find in my own collection (I think I've got a passenger timetable from the 1950s or 60s, and I've got a bunch of other reference material...), but the majority of my references are on subjects in the western US. I'm in the middle of research for the Santa Fe Railroad article, but I'm sure that I'll find something helpful. slambo 15:52, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
OK, I'll devote some time toward getting a template and draft content for the revision. I have official guides from the 1970s into VIA and an older one from the 1930s for passenger info. I'll check what I have about other company operations (steamships, hotels, telegraph, etc.). I agree that historical info is limited in the present version so reversing the proportion would be beneficial to the readership. Plasma east 14:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect interwiki links

I've removed the links to it:CN and sv:CN several times because those are disambiguation pages and I don't see an appropriate Canadian National Railway article on those two wikis yet. Yurikbot keeps re-adding them because CN reidrects to this article. Maybe with them commented out now, the bot won't try to readd them. Slambo (Speak) 16:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commuter service, too

I seem to recall CN operating the commuter train service on Montreal's northern route, Central Station to Deux Montagnes, as recently as the 70s or early 80s. Should that be added to the Passenger section?Shawn in Montreal 04:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion, November 2006

Note: Previous discussion.

  • If we're going to merge, the merge should be into this article title as previously stated. At the moment, I still oppose a merge because the other article was split off from this one in the first place. Slambo (Speak) 17:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing no further activity after my previous comment here, I've removed the merge tags as "no consensus after 10 days". Slambo (Speak) 20:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2007 strike

I'm a bit surprised that nobody's put anything in this article about the current strike. Some details are currently in the following references:

  • Marowtis, Ross (2007-02-13). "CN strike likely to continue over weekend". {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • Pringle, Josh (2007-02-11). "CN Rail Strike Won't Disrupt Service: Officials". CFRA. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  • "CN strike challenged: Railway files beef with labour board". Winnipeg Sun. 2007-02-11. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

The strike is expected to last through the coming weekend, and on reading the various train boards out there, I've heard that the CN mainlines are eerily quiet this week as a result. I've added a short blurb to Portal:Trains based on this information. Has there been any effect on CN operations in the US (other than fewer shipments crossing the border in either direction right now)? Slambo (Speak) 16:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is a strike such as this really worthy of being in an "encyclopedia" ? I think not. It is a news item. Let's at least wait for the outcome of it.

R.L.Kennedy 03:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate link?

I looked at the link that was repeatedly added to the External links section today. I don't think it meets current external links policy because the page encourages readers to "Become a client" of the trading company that owns the site, and the one paragraph of data available on that page is little more than what we already have in the lead section here. I've seen articles in newspapers unrelated to rail transport that are more extensive than that on subjects that are far smaller than this company. Rather than continuously reverting and getting into an edit war over this, let's discuss it further here. Slambo (Speak) 20:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've invited the editor who was reinserting the link to join the discussion here, but looking at his contribution history, he has been adding similar links to a number of other pages about current corporations for the same website. I've removed the link from this article again for the reasons stated above. Slambo (Speak) 22:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#http://spam.andrewjohns.ca and RaymondJames. Slambo (Speak) 22:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transcontinental Railway

In the article, it says CN is "Canada's only transcontinental railway company". But in the article of Canadian Pacific Railway, It says CP "was Canada's first transcontinental railway". So, which one is correct? ppa (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both are correct. CP was the first, but it is no longer a transcontinental within Canada as it does not extend eastward past Quebec any more and only reaches the Atlantic Ocean after passing through New York. CN connects from Vancouver to Nova Scotia entirely within Canada. Slambo (Speak) 11:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but in North America transcontinental railway just means it crosses the Rockies. In any case, CP still reaches Montreal and hence the Atlantic via the St. Lawrence, which is more than many former U.S. transcontinentals could claim. (Western Pacific Railroad? Unless there's a hidden outlet from the Great Salt Lake... :)) Also note that CP didn't originally reach the Maritimes, but it was called a transcontinental from the beginning. (It actually never reached the Atlantic proper except through Maine.) --NE2 20:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seton to Lillooet "Buddweiser"

I've ridden on the Buddweiser, though CN didn't own the BCR line yet; I"m not sure that it's CN that's operating the route, so much as a local body, probably the Seton Band, that's operating it, and CNR has been forced to provide usage of the tracks. I'll be back about that if I can find the details....Skookum1 (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updating the Sale of BC Rail scandal

The passage on the tainted sale of BC Rail is far out of date, notably because the court seal was lifted a few months ago, and just this last couple of weeks 8000 pages of documents have been released, though some apparently have been faked to provide false leads. It's a dirty, dirty story though CNR itself isn't necessarily the bad guy; but various allegations of government and politician misconduct have surfaced, and worries of a mistrial have been eclipsed by revelations that the Premier and other high cabinet officials met with CN, and that the CN sale was rigged from the start, such that the bidding process was rigged and the other bidders have called hte process unfair; the sale may be reversed, particularly if collusion charges are levelled by the governing caucus (i.e. levelled by the authorities, they've already been made by a former caucus member). I'm too busy to keep up with edits to this and the BC Rail and the various politician articles and BC Legislature Raids, and there's more breaking every day. For those interested in this issue and who have the time to update the article in an NPOV fashion (which I, frankly, would find hard to do, as I think the guilty parties on the political side of the equation are all damned crooks) and also disapprove of the CNR's slack safety standards (I know the places their trains have gone over, and know that the trains were unnecessarily long) and wonder what other kickbacks there are in teh equation; the trial has since moved far beyodn the grow-op and money laundering charges; ostensibly it's still only about influence peddling ("receiving/offering a benefit", to/from OmniTRAX via Pilot House Communications, a government-friendly lobbying agency) and the involvement of a "backroom Liberal" (Patrick Kinsella) and various payments made to him for unclear services, and how he lobbied without being a registered lobbyist, for more than one corporate party in the bidding, as well as advising the government (Premier) at the same time.....one of hte main citability problems with all this is that the main news sources have been in blogspace because the national media are covering other issues, like gang warfare, pedophiliac rings, floating feet and avalanches, and of course the global economic meltdown and the usual gamut of "ordinary scandals" in Central CAnada and "hockey gossip"; the notability of certain blogs - http://bctrialofbasi-virk.blogspot.com/ plus http://billtieleman.blogspot.com, and articles in http://thetyee.ca and http://www.straight.com plus the occasional column in the major media (but only occasional) require some flexibility on "reliable sources" (as the blogs mentioend are really teh only reliable sources ,as distortion/evasion by the big media continues, despite the occasional column...). Anyway the shit is hitting the fan as I write this, adn it involves CN in a big way; this will haev to be, or should be, a separate section of its own, jsut as it is on teh BC Rail page. So far the Securities & Ecxhange Commission and its Canadian equivalent aren't involved; by the sound of the latest revelations, though, it should be any day now.....as some of the blogpundits have said "this is the most important corruption trial in BC history"...and perhaps Canadian history, eclipsing Airbus/Mulroney-Schreiber and the Sponsorship Scandal. A pretty big deal, too, financially - $1 billion. I know if I were a CN investor, I'd be very worried right now....Skookum1 (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cuts of service to Northeastern BC

One of the complaints about CN's behaviour in BC has, lately, been the cutting off of freight services into the Peace River Country, increasing costs for those living and doing business in that region; I'll be back with more on that when I have some details.....Skookum1 (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Map needs updating, I think

This is in relation to the situation in the previous section, part of the story of which is that CN closed down services on the Peace River-Prince George link in order to force businesses and residents in that area to rely on a a newly-acquired line/track from Alberta into that region; or would that be the formerly-crown-owned Alberta railway subsidiary? I'll do some digging later about the info in the previous section, but if what I recall reading is right there's another spur line that should be on the map....and does CN own, or not own, the trackline of the Dease Lake Extension?Skookum1 (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name is no longer Canadian National Railway

The DBA name is now "CN" only and "Canadian National" is excluded from company use/press releases. This is fairly well-known for those following the politics of this company; and it may be4 headquartered in Montreal, in terms of Canadian legal requirements re its ownership, but controlling interest and management direction comes from Texas. Note the use of CN in this article which is about a change in CEO....a CEO who happened to be from Tennessee. Don't want to get into ramifications of this except to say that "Canadian National Railway" is an obsolete term.Skookum1 (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when they change their actual name. For now, their website says "© 2009, Canadian National Railway Company". --NE2 20:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CN Worldwide

How can we incorporate CN Worldwide, a private subsidiary owned by CN? Should it be a one-sentence reference in the intro, or a line in the infobox, or possibly a subsection? --ACRSM 02:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Canadian registry v. actual American ownership

In re a discussion topic, now archived I guess (not on the immediate talkpage above) about whether or not this is a Canadian company, someone had responded that 15% of shares is the limit on any one shareholder, as if that somehow "proved" it was Canadian-owned and not run from Texas, and as if having a flagship office with a Canadian address/registry was sufficient to prove it was still Canadian. !5% may be the limit on any one stock portfolio's share but this 2004 report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, quote in the BC Mary blog, says that 70% of shares are held by Americans. Somewhere else another report says that Bill Gates is the single largest shareholder, controlling 23% of shares (apparently through more than one stock portfolio). The actual ownership of the company is dominantly American, and it's known to those who follow the politics or privatization that company decision-making is not in Canadian hands....this is a Canadian registered company, it is not a Canadian owned company......Skookum1 (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting Currency

The company reports in Canadian dollars (all figures on cn.ca) but the article sources these things in USD (the second footnote). This seems illogical. Change it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.129.210 (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for many more states

By the map and article, there are many more states with CNR service, especially between Canada and Alabama. Someone should add those. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Montrain

The article Montrain has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found no WP:RS for the content of this article. Fails WP:V and WP:N

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Purchase of Thompson branch

Hello,

in 1957, the spur from Hudson Bay Railway near Sipiwesk to the city of Thompson, Manitoba, was build and thus owned by INCO. At some point between, 1958 and 1962, the branch was sold to CN. Does somebody know, or maybe could figure out, in what year this did happen?

Regards Kallewirsch (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some pretty heavy googling reveals this [2] - the reports are dated to 1958 - from monthly journals - so I'd say they bought it 1957/8 - looks like they bought it pretty much once it was built. (if I've read right )
quote: "Still another branch line became a part of CNR with acquisition of the newly constructed 30-mile railway from Sipiwesk on the Hudson Bay line in Northern Manitoba to the great new nickel deposits being developed by International Nickel Ltd. at Thompson in the Moal Lake-Mystery Lake region:"
It's mentioned in the context of the opening of the Bartibog to Heathe Steal line which happened in 1957 - so I guess it is a from a review of the previous year (1957) - that would mean that CNR bought the line as soon as it was completed (I would guess that INCO would be making a bigger profit on the mine than CNR on just operating a railway - so it may have made sense for INCO to 'subidise' the cost of the railway by effectively building it for them, and then letting them have it at reduced cost - it might not have made sense as a capital investment for CNR as muc otherwise - that's just a guess = I can't think of another reason why CNR didn't build it themselves if the intention was (as it seems) to operated it from day 1...)
someone at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains might have more info.Imgaril (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the quick response. As searching by Google is often a mystery, without the exact phrase I wouldn´t have found it.

CN was running the line from the beginning, according to this article describing the opening event.

According to this and this article, the bill that allowed CN to buy the line was in its last phase of legislation in December 57. I don´t know how legislation in Canada worked in the late 50ies, but I think the bill was finally passed end of 57 or early 58. Even if there was no much need for negotiations, I think it´s unlikely that the purchase took place still in 57.

The latter souce gives a hint why the line was built by INCO and not by CN. I suppose that in those boom years INCO needed a secure way to bring men and material into Thompson area as soon as possible, so they didn't want to wait until parliament did pass a bill to allow CN to build the line itself. Kallewirsch (talk) 07:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ships

The CNR, in common with many railways, operated an number of ships. This was done through Canadian National Steamships Ltd. The article doesn't mention this at all. Mjroots (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership

This material is unsoursed and rediculous. This is an assumption and if you knew why the GTC was created it was for tax purposes or for merging with another company. If you're going to make text like this the easiest thing to do would be to cite the actual US law.
The US subsidiaries kept their identities due to their ownership. Legally, foreign governments were not allowed to own railroads in the US. However, a railroad owned by another railroad was allowed to operate, even if that "other railroad" was owned by a foreign government. 173.123.200.144 (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canadian_National_Railway&oldid=489160466"