Pan Am Railways article in Trains magazine

8 pages in the January 2010 issue.

Comments?

Good article written by somebody who knows his subject. It sheds a good light on the railroad in my opinion. I enjoyed
reading it.
Noel Weaver

I loved reading the article! It even has a time line for when some things are supposed to be done. I can't wait to see auto racks moving across the Patriot Corridor!

It was definitely a good article...

Fluff piece. Skims over the details of all of the funny-money games played by the parent company in which money was siphoned off the railroad and given to the airline.
Or how everyone (States of MA, ME, the NS etc.) but the parent company has sunk money into trackwork the last 25 years.

The piece also gives Fink Sr. all the credit for being a "pioneer" in reduced crew-sizes and being a real martyr during the strike years of 1987-90.
The management group that was actually out on the road moving the trains despite the hazards created by the striking unions (runaways, sabotage and other violent acts) don't get any mention or credit.

Again - typical industry fluff piece by "Railway Age" oops... I mean "TRAINS" or are they now one in the same, because they sure to seem to be striving for the pro-ownership/upper management angle in their articles these days.

I have not seen the article , however in 1978/79 crews on the B&M were shortened , crews were changed @ Atkinson NH to facilitate the unmanned caboose rule. To say that Mr Fink Sr was a pioneer in the reduced crew management is blatantly false. His soldiers during the labor problems of the late eighties did in fact do all of the work.
The strike of 87 was premised under safety , however safety had nothing to do with it. The relaxed work rules on ST were the main objective.

What I like is how Fink states that 25mph is good enough for the mains and 10mph for branches,even though half of the main from Bangor to Portland is 10.

Peter B&MMEC

Well I thought it was a good read and gave the casual reader a good view as to how things came to be as they are today. I really don't think it fluffed up the Finks at all, nor did it give them credit for two man crews at all. Were you reading the same article?

I did think it discretely credited them for the deplorable condition of the railroad today and their willingness to use other people's money for infrastructure improvement.

newpylong wrote:Well I thought it was a good read and gave the casual reader a good view as to how things came to be as they are today. I really don't think it fluffed up the Finks at all, nor did it give them credit for two man crews at all. Were you reading the same article?

I did think it discretely credited them for the deplorable condition of the railroad today and their willingness to use other people's money for infrastructure improvement.

Like I previously said,"I did Not read nor see the article". I agree that the physical plant is been run down , stepping over dollars to save dimes. We used to go from Rigby to McVille in less that 8hrs!

That's 270 miles in less than hours - you sure of that?

270 miles in 8 hours = an average speed of about 34 MPH. Assuming a 40 MPH railroad with no slow orders and not having to make any stops along the way, I suppose it wouldn't be impossible to make that trip in that amount of time.

There were hoggers that made it in less than 8 , I remember a run to FA(Lawrence) in 2hr 10 mins on duty , NE87 with slipperley LOU from Montague!!!!! BTW thanks for having such a great forumn!!!!!

I believe it. Clear XO and put it in the 8th notch the whole way, lol.

roberttosh wrote:That's 270 miles in less than hours - you sure of that?

The Railroad was 40mph from end to end , there were slow orders and the tunnel was 30. At that time speeding was overlooked , not like it is now with FRA Certification.There were a few hoggers who had a heavy throttle and the physical plant could handle it.Crews could double the XO-FG turns on good days !!!!!

Happy Holidays!!!

newpylong wrote:
Well I thought it was a good read and gave the casual reader a good view as to how things came to be as they are today. I really don't think it fluffed up the Finks at all, nor did it give them credit for two man crews at all. Were you reading the same article?

Yes I did read the same article - see Page 42, Last Paragraph, Subtitled "We're All Railroaders" and read on to page 43 to the end of the second paragraph.

Or to quote the article, verbatim, with proper credit given to author Fred W. Frailey....

"As president of Guilford, Fink realized from its start he would have to bring down its operating costs. `We knew the economics as they existed wouldn't work,' he says. `Either you increased productivity or you didn't do the deal' to buy Boston & Maine, in particular. The inclusion of the D&H, which also operated with five-man crews, redoubled his resolve. Remember this was years before Class I railroads achieved two-person crews by literally buying the jobs of employees they didn't need.
Twice the brotherhoods went on strike to resist the work-rule changes and work-force reductions that Fink demanded, and achieved government mandated settlements pretty much on their terms. Then in late 1986, Fink caught the unions flatfooted with an idea both ingenious and legally unassailable: Guilford leased its subsidiaries Maine Central and Boston & Maine to another subsidiary that almost nobody ever heard of, the 5.4 mile long Springfield Terminal Railway (Springfield in this case being in Vermont)."

Sounds like he got credit to me. And yes some of it is due, but again there is no mention of how the railroad ran its trains during this time. Again getting back to my original point the the management/Train-Service employees who busted their hump to make it work and still caught Fink's wrath on a daily basis over minute operational issues don't get any mention or credit. TRAINS skips over this part - again because its become such an industry in-house rag-sheet like its competitor Railway Age.