GP38 #252

Seeing the thread on the SD45s, it brought GP38 #252 to my mind. Last week, it teamed with #381 on BA-1. That was the first time I had seen this old vet on the Bucksport Branch in over a year, and it's non-turbocharged heart sounded great over the whine of the more modern '40. #252 is over 40 years old now, dating from late 1966! Wasn't #259 supposedly being raised from the dead, too?

The 259 was a hulk in Billerica Shop and was sold to Brookville. It's been totally overhauled
and is now BMEX 259 demonstrator (co-generation unit)....

D

Here's a photo of the 259 taken in November 2008

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.p ... 96&nseq=13

Dick

Is the 252 the only GP-38 left on PAR?

Why is lettered for B&M when it was an MEC unit? After looking at the rosters on rrpicturearchives it looks like Guilford relettered locomotives from B&M to MEC and viceversa. What was the point in doing this?

KSmitty wrote:Is the 252 the only GP-38 left on PAR?

Yes.

KSmitty wrote:Why is lettered for B&M when it was an MEC unit? After looking at the rosters on rrpicturearchives it looks like Guilford relettered locomotives from B&M to MEC and viceversa. What was the point in doing this?

Railfans and industry insiders alike have often speculated about that issue. Some say it's about taxes; some say it's about balancing assets between the two roads. The only ones who know for sure are the big-wigs at Pan Am, and they aren't talking.

They did do it a lot, though, especially in the early days of the company. Dozens of B&M and MEC units were relettered for Springfield Terminal, which on paper is a B&M subsidiary. Many D&H units were relettered for B&M and MEC. And all locomotive purchases from the mid-'90s until present have been MEC lettered. I'm sure there's a rhyme and a reason to it, but the people with the answers are keeping it hush-hush.

It's best not to think too hard about it... you'll just get a headache.

So true. Except for accountants and tax lawyers, their corporate set-up is so draconian it defies understanding.

Does anyone know why they kept 1 GP-38? it seems a little odd to me.

That's a question I've asked many, many times. I wish I knew the answer. It is indeed quite strange that they would keep just one of a particular model. And for that matter, why did they sell the rest of those perfectly-good MEC GP38s (most of which remain in service on Union Pacific and KCS)? It remains a mystery...

Weren't the MEC GP38's involved in something with Helm Leasing (like the ex-DE/MEC SD40's)?
Still doesn't explain why one unit survived.

I guess we can only wish that the bigwigs at PAR would tell us what they were thinking. But i guess the chance that that will ever happen is slim, probably nonexistant.

I think it's pretty simple, most of the equipment is lettered MEC to get it out of reach of the money-sucking Massachusetts Department of Revenue, especially since MA voters backed down from them in November, defeating a bill which would have eliminated the MA State Personal Income Tax. That effectively gave the State cart-blanche to raise taxes any way they see fit, now we are really going to get it.

That could be true in regards to recent (last 10 years) locomotive acquisitions, but that doesn't answer the question of why some MEC units were relettered for B&M back in the mid to late '80s.

Probably to balance the assets of the two companies, as was said in an earlier post.

GP40MC1118 wrote:Weren't the MEC GP38's involved in something with Helm Leasing (like the ex-DE/MEC SD40's)?
Still doesn't explain why one unit survived.

I think HELM repossessed them for non-payment of something.

Bill Gingrich's GRS roster might have more info. I'll go take a look.

^255 256 258 263 were returned/repossesed to the lessor in April 1991.