Canadian National - Time for a New Name?

No I haven't any inside information such is even being considered, but in view of Canadian National's extensive and growing US operations, that its stock is traded on the NYSE, and that it is no longer a ward of the Canadian government, isn't it time to consider a name change to reflect that CN is an investor owned North American railroad system?

Lest we forget, the Kansas City Southern still has an open "dance card" at the "merger ball" and holds a controlling interest in the KCSM, or the lines in Mexico that roundly comprise the former government owned NdeM. If there is ever to be a CN-KCS combination, there would be a true North American railroad.

It will be interesting to hear concurring or contrary thoughts; the next question of course are 'any suggestions" for a new name?

Gilbert B Norman wrote:It will be interesting to hear concurring or contrary thoughts; the next question of course are 'any suggestions" for a new name?

“CN” works fine for me. What’s the difference between CN or CSX, ABC or XYZ? They’re just initials. Legally it might be Canadian National Railways but it’s been more widely known as just CN for nearly 50 years. Does anyone in Memphis or Kankakee (other than a railfan) really associate CN as meaning Canadian National? Most Canadians would just say CN also. So why change something that’s so well known. It’s as fresh a logo today as it was when first introduced in the early ‘60s. And the last time I looked the majority of track was still in Canada.

But whatever you want to call it, the corporate headquarters must remain in Montreal (operating headquarters could be elsewhere) Even when CN and BNSF proposed a merger in the early 2000's, the corporate headquarter would have been in Montreal. It’s an Act Of Parliament by the Government Of Canada when CN was privatized that requires the headquarters to remain in Montreal. CN might be a private company now but the enabling legislation of the Act still stands. (e.g: You might own your house but the covenants on the property you purchased go with it)

NS VIA FAN wrote:Does anyone in Memphis or Kankakee (other than a railfan) really associate CN as meaning Canadian National?

Yes, they do. Especially in their whole aquisition of the J. All one has to do is go onto the Chicago Tribune's website everytime an article is published on the takeover of the EJ&E and one automatically finds many, many postings (from generally misinformed individuals) who talk about how "we can't let those darn Canadians take over our railroad." I'd imagine the same sentiments were present when the IC, WC, and DM&IR were absorbed under the CN banner. In regards to the J purchase, it's my opinion that CN would be having a much easier time if they simply didn't have a Canadian name.

byte wrote: "we can't let those darn Canadians take over our railroad."

Kinda like the way Canadians feel when a US company takes over a icon like the 400 year old Hudson's Bay Company which recently happened.

God help us the day we lose the CPR!

IIRC the question comes up whenever the question of the Grand Trunk comes up. Come to think of it, the GT could be a good "new name". I wonder if any state charters of the old GT are still active? The New Image style logo would look as modern as ever. I'll leave it to the fantasy modelers to do some modern power in a black/green/yellow paint scheme. I'd like to see some CN units painted in Heritage schemes.

byte wrote:

NS VIA FAN wrote:Does anyone in Memphis or Kankakee (other than a railfan) really associate CN as meaning Canadian National?

Yes, they do. Especially in their whole aquisition of the J. All one has to do is go onto the Chicago Tribune's website everytime an article is published on the takeover of the EJ&E and one automatically finds many, many postings (from generally misinformed individuals) who talk about how "we can't let those darn Canadians take over our railroad." I'd imagine the same sentiments were present when the IC, WC, and DM&IR were absorbed under the CN banner. In regards to the J purchase, it's my opinion that CN would be having a much easier time if they simply didn't have a Canadian name.

I feel the same way. At a recent discussion of this very matter several raik managers agreed with my assertion that if the purchase of the "J" was being made by "Irv's Railroad" or any other name the protests wouldn't have been so strong.

It's interesting to contrast three longstanding issues here:
1. Canadian National has been emphasizing "CN" as their name, even though they are still legally Canadian National.
2. It's always been popular to call most railroads by their initials - whether it be formal, like CSX or BNSF, or informal, like UP or NS.
3. It's a recognized marketing tactic NOT to name your company with initials, as it's harder to remember than a fanciful name - compare Milwaukee Road with MILW. Non rail people could never remember MILW.

Its just easier saying CN rather than all of Canadian National. But Canadian National is a legend and the name is history. Maybe if a merger occurs, then they should change the name but I find Canadian national to be fine.

I know they're required by Canadian law to be incorporated in Canada and to keep their headquarters in Montreal.

I suspect they might have trouble changing their name -- the Canadian Parliament might stop them.

In a word, no. It costs money to change a name of a Coproration. Which is why they are stressing that everyone call them CN, not Canadian National, all the while not making anything official... why spend the money? It doesn't bring in any returns. I costs big bucks to re-brand, and CN has been in use since 1918 or 1923.

Another point is that CN isn't merging with these roads in the way that SOU and N&W did to create NS, or BN and ATSF did to form BNSF. CN takes over railroads, kinda like UP. They're not creating a combined system, they're adding you to their empire. They generally don't change the name during a take over.

In fact, since privitization, CN has actually eliminated the storied name of it's US subsidriaries, names that were used largely of conceal Canadian ownership... GTW, DW&P and CV. Plus they dropped the pre-privitization CN North America name, presumably because it was pointless.

Finally, who cares if Canadian National is relevant in Memphis? Is NS relevant in Buffalo, far north of Norfolk? Is CSX relevant anywhere?

I find it fascinating that Americans don't want those Canadians taking over their RR's! CN is largely owned by Americans, and other than they typical Can-con stupidity of maintaining the HQ in Canada, CN is based out of Chicago now and operated out of Markham, IL. But the average American on the street could care less what the trains are called... just ask one if they've ever been to the CNN Tower in Toronto, Canada

Two of my greatest loves are history and trains. From the age of six, my dad took my brother and myself to the Sacramento Railroad Museum. That was a very impressionable age. We walked around the displays and my dad read about where the locomotives ran and how they each affected the history of our country. Many children love trains. We live in the age of Thomas this and Gordon that. 200-ton modern locomotives are a sight, however, being near them is not the safest way to teach your enthusiastic child-rail fan about how the railroad works.

Chicago National!!!

Just admit that you want a name to reflect the North/South segment instead of just the East/West segment.

Well, now, CN runs to all four points on the compass, and CN suits me just fine. It has established brand recognition, is an industry leader and it already has a modern yet classic corporate logo on it's equipment.

What more could the boardroom suits ask for?

The railway stopped being completely Canadian when Ottawa so foolishly divested the Crown Corporation, and CN went public. You get more Americans who call it "Canadian National" since the purchase and absorbtion of IC, than Canadians have done since 1965. You guys living and working on "The Mississippi Line", please tell me something; which do you call that Fallen Flag? "IC" or Illinois Central? In my travels, I've heard it called "Illinois Central" more than I have ever heard the line called "IC".

Canadians have just called this railway "CN" for DECADES. FOr a while it was written "C. N." but once the worm logo was introduced, that was condensed to just "CN" in print. You hear "CN" on Canadian Television news, it's seldom spelled out in the press, the people in the street and the WORKERS all just call it "CN". Get with the program, it's "CN".

D/

Everyone: Interesting topic concerning the Canadian National name and CN name and moniker here-
I always liked the CN 60s logo and colors-it looks fine and is practically timeless. As Lock mentions that the CNNA logo and name may have been pointless but it was my favorite variation of it with the North American continent map background.

Lock and Dieter-I agree with you both and your good points - How about this thought: CN meaning -CENTRAL NORTHERN-
-The CENTRAL meaning the former GTW and IC midwestern US service while the NORTHERN representing basically the Canadian transcontinental service of CN. The name would represent the basic compass directions in North America served by the CN system. Maybe a name change like introducing the -CENTRAL NORTHERN RAILWAY- may be the way to solve the Canada/US identity problem! Observations and thoughts from MACTRAXX

NO. Leave it the way it is.

Keep it Canadian.