Talk:Canadian National Railway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Companies Portal
This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale.
Trains Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
High This article has been rated as high-importance within the Trains WikiProject.
Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
    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)

[edit] 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:

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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