Guilford: the worst?

I have been following the history of the B&A, MEC, D&H and their eventual takeover by Guilford. Pan Am wikipedia entry is less than complimentary about Guilford and Pan Am practices, though most of the comments appear to be well sourced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Railways; the B&M wiki article is of a similar vein. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_and ... n#Guilford.

Without knowing much else, except that Pan Am is regularly getting fined, tried to abandon their way to profitability, caused a great many labor strikes after leasing everything to ST, made life difficult for Amtrak, it seems Guilford/Pan Am has little credibility and operates quite possibly the worst railroad in the U.S.

Is this an accurate assessment?

History, like reputations, can tend to be fluid. Read through the different posts here and I think you will find a measure of cautious optimism that things may be improving/changing at PanAm. From freight operations to actually supporting a rail excursion through the Hoosac Tunnel you can sense some of the changes...even the business car appearance is quite a positive sign. Look forward and hope for the best. Business seems to be picking up, and that certainly may be a motivation...

It would be easy to dwell on the negatives, but with good stuff going on, more exciting to think what might be with this group!

Steve

I think there are certainly other railroads in the U.S. that, at present, are vying for the "worst railroad" title and would absolutely be more likely to win that award than Pan Am.

No, I'm not going to name names.

As of this year, it's been 30 years since the Boston & Maine Corporation came under Guilford control. 30 years. That's a long time. If they've managed to last that long, I'd say that they must be doing at least a few things right.

Following up on highrail's observations, history tends to get written either by victors or by survivors. Pan Am is in the process of rewriting itself, not just through rebranding and reimaging the Guilford iterations but also through attempting a self-reformation. Decades of decline in the pre-Guilford era morphed into a series of seemingly defiant confrontations and contractions during the Guilford era. The Pan Am rebranding was initially generally interpreted as an attempt at misdirection, that stock in trade of most illusionists, but attempts and even successes in framing a new order of things, admittedly with major help from NS, have reoriented the company. Improvements could and perhaps should be happening more quickly, but improvements are happening. Perception lag and mistrust will remain problems until trust is built.
Whether the Pan Am rewrite will be that of a victor or a short-term survivor will be revealed, but my optimism, while cautious, is there.

highrail wrote:History, like reputations, can tend to be fluid. Read through the different posts here and I think you will find a measure of cautious optimism that things may be improving/changing at PanAm. From freight operations to actually supporting a rail excursion through the Hoosac Tunnel you can sense some of the changes...even the business car appearance is quite a positive sign. Look forward and hope for the best. Business seems to be picking up, and that certainly may be a motivation...

It would be easy to dwell on the negatives, but with good stuff going on, more exciting to think what might be with this group!

Steve

Amen

I've spoken with non-railfan business folks from back in that era and they cited Guilford as one of the best managed railroads out there. While this sounds crazy, the railroad survived for many years under the Guilford flag. Management decisions that kept the RR running under strict or short resources are what I believe were the things they were referring to as well as shedding money-losing lines. Also believe it or not, but the loop hole to lease all lines to the ST was actually quite genius to reduce from 5-man crews to 2-man. Not saying that morally or ethically the decision was properly executed (Strikes were the result) but from a business stand point, they were looking to make train operations more efficient. And for the most part, Guilford was right because how many RRs do you still see using 5-man crews?

After working for Guilford I could tell you stories that would make you question the sanity of those in charge, let alone their business tactics.

That said, that was some time ago. It will take a long time to fix 25 years of distrust and neglect, but it is happening. Some things haven't changed, but more have. It just isn't the same railroad as when I worked there, for the better. They are trying...

-The physical plant is being invested in ways that the company and the Black Horse can sustain.
-Trains run, and they run whether they have 1 car or 100. Train crews are largely left alone and not taken for other jobs. It happens, but not like it used to.
-They are hiring as fast as possible.
-They have leased or purchased locomotives to meet demand.
-Consignees and interchanging railroads are describing vastly improved service. They have stolen business away from other railroads in some instances.
-They are going after every carload, big or small, and actively building new business. The paper won't last forever.
-Interchanges that have been closed for years have been re-opened.
-They are increasingly passenger rail, public, and PR friendly.

I am sure I missed some things but 7 years ago I could not have imagined any of this happening.

The mid-1980s was a painful time for many of us who were familiar with the B&M of the pre-Guilford Alan Dustin administration and the positive attitude that accompanied that management team as they attempted to pull the railroad out of bankruptcy. However that was a shockingly long time ago now, and like others I am willing to acknowledge that in recent years the Pan Am organization has made changes for the better.

What would've happened to the B&M and MEC had Guilford not appeared?

...mebbe what happened to the D&H post-Guilford?
There was that famous line from the Vietnam War with various iterations, one of which was "We had to destroy the village to save it." Ben Tre was never the same after the application of such logic. Neither were the B&M or MEC.

The only way to answer Best & Worst is context. Was Guilford the worst from years x to y? I don't know. Now? I doubt it. I admire PanAm for carrying on, the same way I admire all those little Saturns still running around- we never thought much of them, but they keep on ticking.

If Guilford didn't come along, I see two possibilities-

1- an asset stripping management would have carved them into a series of shortlines, which would be part(s) of a larger organization, and much fewer miles.

2- the states involved would have stepped in and done what I suggest above, or take ownership of the lines and hired outside management, à la the former Rutland. In this scenario I think we'd have more customers (no bridge traffic mantra) on fewer miles- more shortline operators, nothing west of Greenfield. And the Montréaler/Vermonter would have stayed on it's old route b/c the Commonwealth would have kept the tracks in better shape.

Either way, there would have been the same changes in operations, as in fewer crew.

I like a good story and hoped to see some examples of the worst thing Guilford or any rival for the worst had done.

kwf wrote:What would've happened to the B&M and MEC had Guilford not appeared?

Short term, the B&M would have been fine since in the early 1980s the company had a positive cash flow. Long term, who knows, given the contining shrinkage of New England's traditional industrial base through the 1980s and eventually railroad deregulation.

Under the terms of Federal bankruptcy law, the B&M had to eventually settle its past corporate debts (primarily mortgage bonds) with its creditors. The deadline for doing this would have been established by the Federal bankruptcy court, likely sometime in the mid-1980s. The Dustin administration's plan was to reorganize the compay through a stock offering, the cash from which would have been used to settle with creditors. But before this was implemented, Timothy Mellon came along with an offer to buy. It was his money that settled the bankruptcy proceedings and we all know what happened after that. It seemed like a good idea at the time to B&M management since there was always the chance that the court would push for closure before the stock offering was concluded (which would have resulted in liquidation and a selloff of the property), or that the stock offering would fail to raise enough money to settle the debts (same outcome), or that traffic would have dropped due to regional economic conditions in spite of the B&M's aggressive marketing department (ditto).

New opportunities have presented themselves, as old business dries up. The closure of the paper, and other industries are on one hand. The bright spot has been intermodal, and oil.


Dustin tried the intermodal route. With D&H and N&W as partners. Against Conrail, it was too slow. I'm sure CR did everything to delay them on the tier. This has changed since N&W's successor, NS owns the tier. D&H is in better shape, with CP's deep pockets. Who knows if B&M could have held out until outside factors changed in its favor. Tom Nelligan makes good points. He also interviewed Mr. Dustin for his exceptional coverage of B&M, in the late bankruptcy era.

I will say that more than a few CSX guys have noticed that they are paying better than CSX.

9axle wrote:I will say that more than a few CSX guys have noticed that they are paying better than CSX.

In which crafts?