Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

FJG 34064 Photo

Expand Messages
  • Paul Charland
    Hi Aaron, My mistake, the ajk shot is attributed to a John Komanesky . I d have to think if this car was photographed in 1990 wearing FJG 34064 then it
    Message 1 of 11 , Jan 12, 2010
      Hi Aaron,

      My mistake, the "ajk" shot is attributed to a "John Komanesky".

      I'd have to think if this car was photographed in 1990 wearing "FJG
      34064" then it has to be the same car that was listed in the 1980
      Official Railroad Equipment Register.

      All five shots from two different photographers were taken in Saddle
      Brook NJ in 1990, was there a DO system shortline there?

      Paul :-)
    • John
      Paul-- I could be wrong but there is no doubt in my mind that is the same car in the register. Yesterday I posted info on the history of this car. It is now
      Message 2 of 11 , Jan 12, 2010
        Paul--

        I could be wrong but there is no doubt in my mind that is the same car in the register.

        Yesterday I posted info on the history of this car. It is now owned by URHS of NJ after NYSW donated it. I assume it was being used by NYSW in those shots on Fallen Flags or maybe it was donated by then.

        URHS also has a single photo of this car on their website if you go their.

        I am 99% sure that this car never appeared on the FJG prior to 1983 (I did not follow the line as much after 1982 so can not speak to that brief period).

        FJG had their 2 old flatcars they used for MOW and they had a Trailer Train intermodal flat they had a digging truck chained to (this was leased or rented or whatever you do to "borrow" a Trailer Train flat as they had it about a year or so. All the ties and rails they laid came on line in gons from mostly DH and CR.

        I would love to know why DO assigned FJG reporting marks to this car. Seems very odd. Why not just put NYSW marks on it?

        The FJG also had those 2 tankcars used at Commonwealth that had their reporting marks


        --- In FJGRailroad@yahoogroups.com, Paul Charland <p.charlie@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hi Aaron,
        >
        > My mistake, the "ajk" shot is attributed to a "John Komanesky".
        >
        > I'd have to think if this car was photographed in 1990 wearing "FJG
        > 34064" then it has to be the same car that was listed in the 1980
        > Official Railroad Equipment Register.
        >
        > All five shots from two different photographers were taken in Saddle
        > Brook NJ in 1990, was there a DO system shortline there?
        >
        > Paul :-)
        >
      • Aaron Keller
        I have two theories; one plays into the other. When the DO took over the FJ&G, it was the next big thing. Probably the most profitable railroad they
        Message 3 of 11 , Jan 12, 2010
          I have two theories; one plays into the other.

          When the DO took over the FJ&G, it was "the next big thing."  Probably the most profitable railroad they operated up until that point.  Profitable meaning they had more crossings available to take state money to repair, for you cynics.  Profitable also meaning that they had daily trains running with roughly ten cars up and ten cars down.  That was more traffic than the LASB, the CNYK, or the CACV.  So, putting "FJG" on things seemed to make sense, it was the big thing at the time. 

          The other side of the story requires the mind of a lawyer.  When DO merged with the FJ&G, it also acquired a controlling interest in the Coal Company of Fulton County.  Why would anyone want to own a coal company, you might ask.  First, if you are in business, you want to control any corporate name you can have for cheap.  Not filing new incorporation papers certainly makes that process easy.  Second, DO wanted to use the Gloversville coal barn as a transload point, possibly for road salt, right?  Third --- and this is the key here --- DO wanted the coal company's corporate charter in order to hire work gangs.  The Coal Company of Fulton County's legal name was changed to Fonfulco at some point*, and this was the name DO applied to its work crews.  I suspect this may have been a move to get around paying the men railroad retirement board pensions. 

          See the very bottom (fine print) of the following, which does not list Fonfulco as a RRB covered entity: 
          http://www.rrb.gov/blaw/bcd/bcd02-32.html

          For years, Fonfulco provided work for all the DO roads, including the NYS&W.  The DO annual reports detail some of this. 

          Theoretically the corporate charter was all that was at work; the piece of paper said Fonfulco.  But it is an interesting subject to study and ponder.  Same with the FJ&G's corporate charter being applied to the Syracuse, Binghamton & New York (OnTrack).  That was a move to allow OnTrack to operate without a union (FJ&G was non-union in the 1990s; it was just a paper corporation with no employees) and the NYS&W was union.

          For information on the charters:

          FJ&G:
          http://appsext8.dos.state.ny.us/corp_public/CORPSEARCH.ENTITY_INFORMATION?p_nameid=31580&p_corpid=26195

          Fonfulco:
          http://appsext8.dos.state.ny.us/corp_public/CORPSEARCH.ENTITY_INFORMATION?p_nameid=37166&p_corpid=30648&p_entity_name=fonfulco&p_name_type=%25&p_search_type=CONTAINS&p_srch_results_page=0

          *The NY incorporation papers list the name change to Fonfulco as having occurred in 1964.  I suspect this really should read 1974.  These are paper records which were transcribed to HTML and I have spotted a few inconsistencies in the past.

          I suspect the rationale for painting this car FJG may have had to do with keeping the work equipment out of the books of a RRB-covered entity.  Fonfulco owned the other work equipment.  Why not the flat car that supported that work equipment?  Note that this flat car appears to be nothing but a work flat.  The NYS&W had its own initials on its own cars by this time.

          I could be totally, completely, 100% wrong on this stuff... so if anyone has a better guess, or evidence to the contrary, I welcome hearing it. 

          -Aaron

        • Paul Charland
          Hi Aaron, Your breaking up the union theory smacks of what Timothy Mellon did to the MEC, D&H, and B&M when he sold them to the Springfield Terminal and made
          Message 4 of 11 , Jan 13, 2010
            Hi Aaron,

            Your breaking up the union theory smacks of what Timothy Mellon did to
            the MEC, D&H, and B&M when he sold them to the Springfield Terminal and
            made the union go away!

            I have a slightly simpler idea about the mystery flatcar. Let's say a
            group of shortlines needed a flatcar for maintenance, but just
            occasionally so why not buy one car and share it. Maybe it would be
            nice to be able to ship things like rail between them, so you buy a used
            flatcar and change the reporting marks. Seeing as it has to be
            interchanged to go between your different shortlines it has to be listed
            in the Official Railroad Equipment Register. The reason for it being
            listed as an FJ&G car is that was the nearest one of your shortlines
            from the B&M interchange that had a shop where you could check out the
            car and repaint the reporting marks.

            Just a thought!

            Paul :-)
          • joseph Klapkowski
            There is probably an element of truth in there somewhere....I like it.... To: FJGRailroad@yahoogroups.com From: akeller_1979@yahoo.com Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010
            Message 5 of 11 , Jan 13, 2010
              There is probably an element of truth in there somewhere....I like it....


              To: FJGRailroad@yahoogroups.com
              From: akeller_1979@...
              Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:36:23 -0800
              Subject: Re: [FJGRailroad] Re: FJG 34064 Photo

               
              I have two theories; one plays into the other.

              When the DO took over the FJ&G, it was "the next big thing."  Probably the most profitable railroad they operated up until that point.  Profitable meaning they had more crossings available to take state money to repair, for you cynics.  Profitable also meaning that they had daily trains running with roughly ten cars up and ten cars down.  That was more traffic than the LASB, the CNYK, or the CACV.  So, putting "FJG" on things seemed to make sense, it was the big thing at the time. 

              The other side of the story requires the mind of a lawyer.  When DO merged with the FJ&G, it also acquired a controlling interest in the Coal Company of Fulton County.  Why would anyone want to own a coal company, you might ask.  First, if you are in business, you want to control any corporate name you can have for cheap.  Not filing new incorporation papers certainly makes that process easy.  Second, DO wanted to use the Gloversville coal barn as a transload point, possibly for road salt, right?  Third --- and this is the key here --- DO wanted the coal company's corporate charter in order to hire work gangs.  The Coal Company of Fulton County's legal name was changed to Fonfulco at some point*, and this was the name DO applied to its work crews.  I suspect this may have been a move to get around paying the men railroad retirement board pensions. 

              See the very bottom (fine print) of the following, which does not list Fonfulco as a RRB covered entity: 
              http://www.rrb. gov/blaw/ bcd/bcd02- 32.html

              For years, Fonfulco provided work for all the DO roads, including the NYS&W.  The DO annual reports detail some of this. 

              Theoretically the corporate charter was all that was at work; the piece of paper said Fonfulco.  But it is an interesting subject to study and ponder.  Same with the FJ&G's corporate charter being applied to the Syracuse, Binghamton & New York (OnTrack).  That was a move to allow OnTrack to operate without a union (FJ&G was non-union in the 1990s; it was just a paper corporation with no employees) and the NYS&W was union.

              For information on the charters:

              FJ&G:
              http://appsext8. dos.state. ny.us/corp_ public/CORPSEARC H.ENTITY_ INFORMATION? p_nameid= 31580&p_corpid=26195

              Fonfulco:
              http://appsext8. dos.state. ny.us/corp_ public/CORPSEARC H.ENTITY_ INFORMATION? p_nameid= 37166&p_corpid=30648&p_entity_name= fonfulco&p_name_type= %25&p_search_type= CONTAINS&p_srch_results_ page=0

              *The NY incorporation papers list the name change to Fonfulco as having occurred in 1964.  I suspect this really should read 1974.  These are paper records which were transcribed to HTML and I have spotted a few inconsistencies in the past.

              I suspect the rationale for painting this car FJG may have had to do with keeping the work equipment out of the books of a RRB-covered entity.  Fonfulco owned the other work equipment.  Why not the flat car that supported that work equipment?  Note that this flat car appears to be nothing but a work flat.  The NYS&W had its own initials on its own cars by this time.

              I could be totally, completely, 100% wrong on this stuff... so if anyone has a better guess, or evidence to the contrary, I welcome hearing it. 

              -Aaron




              Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.
            • Ed Fielding
              [Ed] Very well put! Ed ... To: FJGRailroad@yahoogroups.com From: akeller_1979@yahoo.com Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:36:23 -0800 Subject: Re: [FJGRailroad] Re:
              Message 6 of 11 , Jan 13, 2010
                [Ed] Very well put!
                 
                Ed 

                To: FJGRailroad@ yahoogroups. com
                From: akeller_1979@ yahoo.com
                Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:36:23 -0800
                Subject: Re: [FJGRailroad] Re: FJG 34064 Photo

                 
                I have two theories; one plays into the other.

                When the DO took over the FJ&G, it was "the next big thing."  Probably the most profitable railroad they operated up until that point.  Profitable meaning they had more crossings available to take state money to repair, for you cynics.  Profitable also meaning that they had daily trains running with roughly ten cars up and ten cars down.  That was more traffic than the LASB, the CNYK, or the CACV.  So, putting "FJG" on things seemed to make sense, it was the big thing at the time. 

                The other side of the story requires the mind of a lawyer.  When DO merged with the FJ&G, it also acquired a controlling interest in the Coal Company of Fulton County.  Why would anyone want to own a coal company, you might ask.  First, if you are in business, you want to control any corporate name you can have for cheap.  Not filing new incorporation papers certainly makes that process easy.  Second, DO wanted to use the Gloversville coal barn as a transload point, possibly for road salt, right?  Third --- and this is the key here --- DO wanted the coal company's corporate charter in order to hire work gangs.  The Coal Company of Fulton County's legal name was changed to Fonfulco at some point*, and this was the name DO applied to its work crews.  I suspect this may have been a move to get around paying the men railroad retirement board pensions. 

                See the very bottom (fine print) of the following, which does not list Fonfulco as a RRB covered entity: 
                http://www.rrb. gov/blaw/ bcd/bcd02- 32.html

                For years, Fonfulco provided work for all the DO roads, including the NYS&W.  The DO annual reports detail some of this. 

                Theoretically the corporate charter was all that was at work; the piece of paper said Fonfulco.  But it is an interesting subject to study and ponder.  Same with the FJ&G's corporate charter being applied to the Syracuse, Binghamton & New York (OnTrack).  That was a move to allow OnTrack to operate without a union (FJ&G was non-union in the 1990s; it was just a paper corporation with no employees) and the NYS&W was union.

                For information on the charters:

                FJ&G:
                http://appsext8. dos.state. ny.us/corp_ public/CORPSEARC H.ENTITY_ INFORMATION? p_nameid= 31580&p_corpid=26195

                Fonfulco:
                http://appsext8. dos.state. ny.us/corp_ public/CORPSEARC H.ENTITY_ INFORMATION? p_nameid= 37166&p_corpid=30648&p_entity_name= fonfulco&p_name_type= %25&p_search_type= CONTAINS&p_srch_results_ page=0

                *The NY incorporation papers list the name change to Fonfulco as having occurred in 1964.  I suspect this really should read 1974.  These are paper records which were transcribed to HTML and I have spotted a few inconsistencies in the past.

                I suspect the rationale for painting this car FJG may have had to do with keeping the work equipment out of the books of a RRB-covered entity.  Fonfulco owned the other work equipment.  Why not the flat car that supported that work equipment?  Note that this flat car appears to be nothing but a work flat.  The NYS&W had its own initials on its own cars by this time.

                I could be totally, completely, 100% wrong on this stuff... so if anyone has a better guess, or evidence to the contrary, I welcome hearing it. 

                -Aaron




                Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.

              • John
                Aaron- Well done. Lots of good information here. Thanks for taking the time to share all this. This all makes perfect sense to me. I agree, the FJG was the
                Message 7 of 11 , Jan 13, 2010
                  Aaron-

                  Well done. Lots of good information here. Thanks for taking the time to share all this.

                  This all makes perfect sense to me.

                  I agree, the FJG was the "next big thing" for Walt until the NYSW thing got going strong. Walt and his red caddy were in Gloversville a lot of the time in the early and mid DO years.



                  --- In FJGRailroad@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Keller <akeller_1979@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > I have two theories; one plays into the other.
                  >
                • John
                  I will preface my remarks by saying I am neither for or against unions as they have an important role to play but they can get out of control. The rail unions
                  Message 8 of 11 , Jan 13, 2010
                    I will preface my remarks by saying I am neither for or against unions as they have an important role to play but they can get out of control. The rail unions did hinder railroad economies for many years (firemen on diesels being the classic example).

                    Mellon did not really make the union go away. By putting everything under ST he swapped agreements for one with more flexible work rules so he was in a better position to make money in a tough operating arena. Maybe not labor friendly but probably really good business. And a creative and bold move.

                    I am by no means a Guilford fan after what went on with the D&H but the recent Trains article on Pan Am Railway was, in my opinion, very well written and eye opening as to Tim Mellon and what he has done. There are a ton of Guilford bashers and from a railfan perspective its not a line I have liked in the past but they have survived. Most of the B&M more or less still exists which is a small miracle.

                    --- In FJGRailroad@yahoogroups.com, Paul Charland <p.charlie@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Hi Aaron,
                    >
                    > Your breaking up the union theory smacks of what Timothy Mellon did to
                    > the MEC, D&H, and B&M when he sold them to the Springfield Terminal and
                    > made the union go away!
                    >
                    >
                    > Paul :-)
                    >
                  • Aaron Keller
                    Please keep in mind that my point for bringing this information out there was to describe the various corporate moves... the FJ&G charter being applied to the
                    Message 9 of 11 , Jan 13, 2010
                      Please keep in mind that my point for bringing this information out there was to describe the various corporate moves... the FJ&G charter being applied to the SB&NY (OnTrack) was the only union-related move.  Theoretically any company can "unionize," SB&NY could have done so, too, but no one there wanted to.  They also wanted to be able to run the Budd cars with one-man crews vs. two-man crews.  This point was mainly an "aside" to the discussion on Fonfulco being used to run the work crews.  Not just any company can claim Railroad Retirement Board benefits; Fonfulco could not.  It was basically a contract to a railroad, not a transportation provider.  Note that nowhere did I accuse DO or anyone affiliated with it of trying to "bust" a union; they didn't.  By all accounts Walter and his management teams were extremely generous to their employees over the years; perhaps more generous than most other employers. 

                      -Aaron



                      From: John <jsesonske@...>
                      To: FJGRailroad@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 12:34:32 PM
                      Subject: [FJGRailroad] Re: FJG 34064 Photo---Mellon and the ST move

                      I will preface my remarks by saying I am neither for or against unions as they have an important role to play but they can get out of control. The rail unions did hinder railroad economies for many years (firemen on diesels being the classic example).

                      Mellon did not really make the union go away. By putting everything under ST he swapped agreements for one with more flexible work rules so he was in a better position to make money in a tough operating arena. Maybe not labor friendly but probably really good business. And a creative and bold move.

                      I am by no means a Guilford fan after what went on with the D&H but the recent Trains article on Pan Am Railway was, in my opinion, very well written and eye opening as to Tim Mellon and what he has done. There are a ton of Guilford bashers and from a railfan perspective its not a line I have liked in the past but they have survived. Most of the B&M more or less still exists which is a small miracle.

                    • Paul Larner
                      Re: Fonfulco, Inc. From the 1964 annual report: Progressive coal and oil sales volume decline in recent years resulted in annually recurring net losses for
                      Message 10 of 11 , Jan 13, 2010
                        Re: Fonfulco, Inc.  From the 1964 annual report:  "Progressive coal and oil sales volume decline in recent years resulted in annually recurring net losses for this company's wholly owned affiliate, Fulton County Coal and Oil Co. Inc., and in order to preserve assets - it retired from the coal and oil business, selling its inventory and other fuel business assets on May 8 1964, and the name of the affiliate was threafter changed to Fonfulco, Inc."
                         
                        More to follow on the other issues as I have to get to a meeting.
                         
                        PKL
                         

                        To: FJGRailroad@yahoogroups.com
                        From: akeller_1979@...
                        Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 09:57:41 -0800
                        Subject: Re: [FJGRailroad] Re: FJG 34064 Photo---Mellon and the ST move

                         
                        Please keep in mind that my point for bringing this information out there was to describe the various corporate moves... the FJ&G charter being applied to the SB&NY (OnTrack) was the only union-related move.  Theoretically any company can "unionize," SB&NY could have done so, too, but no one there wanted to.  They also wanted to be able to run the Budd cars with one-man crews vs. two-man crews.  This point was mainly an "aside" to the discussion on Fonfulco being used to run the work crews.  Not just any company can claim Railroad Retirement Board benefits; Fonfulco could not.  It was basically a contract to a railroad, not a transportation provider.  Note that nowhere did I accuse DO or anyone affiliated with it of trying to "bust" a union; they didn't.  By all accounts Walter and his management teams were extremely generous to their employees over the years; perhaps more generous than most other employers. 

                        -Aaron



                        From: John <jsesonske@aol. com>
                        To: FJGRailroad@ yahoogroups. com
                        Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 12:34:32 PM
                        Subject: [FJGRailroad] Re: FJG 34064 Photo---Mellon and the ST move

                        I will preface my remarks by saying I am neither for or against unions as they have an important role to play but they can get out of control. The rail unions did hinder railroad economies for many years (firemen on diesels being the classic example).

                        Mellon did not really make the union go away. By putting everything under ST he swapped agreements for one with more flexible work rules so he was in a better position to make money in a tough operating arena. Maybe not labor friendly but probably really good business. And a creative and bold move.

                        I am by no means a Guilford fan after what went on with the D&H but the recent Trains article on Pan Am Railway was, in my opinion, very well written and eye opening as to Tim Mellon and what he has done. There are a ton of Guilford bashers and from a railfan perspective its not a line I have liked in the past but they have survived. Most of the B&M more or less still exists which is a small miracle.




                        Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now.
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.