Pittsburgh & Lake Erie / New York Central

The Central took interest in the P&LE very early on. By 1889 the Central took over controlling rights. The P&LE remained a separate entity, only getting small recognition on Central equipment. Ironically, it outlasted the Central and Penn Central.....the P&LE actually became part of CSX.............Pat

I would love to see MTH do this paint scheme.

harmonyards posted:

The Central took interest in the P&LE very early on. By 1889 the Central took over controlling rights. The P&LE remained a separate entity, only getting small recognition on Central equipment. Ironically, it outlasted the Central and Penn Central.....the P&LE actually became part of CSX.............Pat

The P&LE was 50 % owned by the NYC in 1930.  I'm cehcking with the NYC historical group to see if that was increased to 100 %.  At the time of the PC merger, the P&LE was still independently operated and owned its own locomotives and cars, but its sales and acoounting departments were integrated with the NYC.

From a publicity perspective, it was marketed as part of the New York Central System.  It's equipment had NYC logos and color schemes but were always lettered P&LE.  I strongly doubt that a P&LE locomotive would have had an NYC tender.

One reason that the P&LE was kept separate was its financial strength.  That enabled it to borrow money to buy equipment at lower interest rates.

P&LE engine.

Pete

Yep,  the short of it is the New York Central had controlling interest in the P&LE up until the Penn-Central merger,. After they became independent in 1979, for the first time since 1882, they adopted the Black and Gold paint scheme for the latter part of the 20th century. (Pittsburgh regional sports teams colors, maybe?), Then in 1994, they were merged into CSX corp.

I've also heard that Black because coal was the main freight hauled by the Railroad and Gold because it shone better against the black backdrop. Maybe someone can shed some light on their color scheme choice of Black and Gold.

If you're interested in their history , a good book to read is Pittsburgh and Lake Erie R.R. by Harold H. Mclean.

mlaughlinnyc posted:

harmonyards posted:

The Central took interest in the P&LE very early on. By 1889 the Central took over controlling rights. The P&LE remained a separate entity, only getting small recognition on Central equipment. Ironically, it outlasted the Central and Penn Central.....the P&LE actually became part of CSX.............Pat

The P&LE was 50 % owned by the NYC in 1930.  I'm cehcking with the NYC historical group to see if that was increased to 100 %.  At the time of the PC merger, the P&LE was still independently operated and owned its own locomotives and cars, but its sales and acoounting departments were integrated with the NYC.

From a publicity perspective, it was marketed as part of the New York Central System.  It's equipment had NYC logos and color schemes but were always lettered P&LE.  I strongly doubt that a P&LE locomotive would have had an NYC tender.

One reason that the P&LE was kept separate was its financial strength.  That enabled it to borrow money to buy equipment at lower interest rates.

 

 

 

 

 

 

By 1889, the New York Central Railroad took Full Control over the P&LE .....according to the New York Central Railroad Historical Society ...can you show me where in 1930 they only controlled or owned only 50%?...I’m not saying your wrong....please don’t take it the wrong way...if you know something I don’t, I’d like to learn too...........Pat

The P&LE has a great history, worth researching if you are interested. 

Here’s some photos of P&LE diesels from the NYCSHS’s online database I thought you’d like. 

The NYC has some different paint schemes between each of their subsidiaries, check them out. 

Oddly enough; this has been a P&LE week on my layout.

Curt

Norton posted:

P&LE engine.

Pete

That is an interesting illustration of what I was saying about NYC and P&LE lettering.  Note that P&LE is lettered on the tender.  The locomotive was legally P&LE 6401(?).  The words New York Central System were  sales/marketing slogan, you might say a brand name.  There was no corporate entity with that name.  It appeared on locomotives of other separate corporations such as the Peoria & Eastern and the Chicago River & Indiana.  

mlaughlinnyc posted:

Norton posted:

P&LE engine.

Pete

That is an interesting illustration of what I was saying about NYC and P&LE lettering.  Note that P&LE is lettered on the tender.  The locomotive was legally P&LE 6401(?).  The words New York Central System were  sales/marketing slogan, you might say a brand name.  There was no corporate entity with that name.  It appeared on locomotives of other separate corporations such as the Peoria & Eastern and the Chicago River & Indiana.  

What your saying makes sense, but doesn’t the New York Central Systems in big lettering ....way bigger than the tiny P&LE, kinda say “who’s your daddy?”  and “don’t forget it”..................Pat

I want to first issue a disclaimer that I am not a New York Central authority.  However, as an observer, mostly through photographs and written works, I have noticed that P&LE was not the only railroad with System lettering.

• Locomotives owned by New York Central Railroad, displayed New York Central lettering.
• Locomotives operated by subsidiaries such as Pittsburgh & Lake Erie (P&LE), or Big Four (CCC&L) -- possibly also including Peoria & Eastern and Cleveland Union Terminal (CUT) -- generally displayed New York Central System lettering at least until the second generation of diesel-electric locomotives arrived.  I am not sure about lettering on P&LE's small fleet of Alco-GE PA passenger units.

The Pennsy did the same with owned but independent subsidiaries  until merged into the parent corporation.    For a long time the equipment owned by companies "west of Pittsburgh" was lettered "Pennsylvania Lines" .    The companies such as PFT&C (Fort Wayne) and PCC&STL (PanHandle) were the two biggies, but there were many others.    Until after WW I sometime in the early 1920s, PRR Lines West maintained separate engineering and building shops in Fort Wayne.    The PRR N1 2-10-2 for example was Lines West design to do the same work as the PRR I1 2-10-0.    The PRR H10 was a LInes West Design while the H9 was PRR.

By the 30s and onward the power moved around a lot.

One of my favorite steamers, MTH 2-8-4 Berkshire A2, NYC with P&LE on the tender.

Some other roads had local companies which were part of the "System".  Some of these were caused by local or state laws.  SP had T&NO in TX because of state law.  Gulf Coast and Santa Fe was begun and owned by Galveston County.  It connected with the ATSF in southern OK.  ATSF bought it, but kept the GC&SF company organization.  My guess the same TX law which required a RR in TX to be a TX based RR.  This law was removed around 1960.  SP merged T&NO in the early 60's.  I do not know what ATSF did.

Second, some companies, including railroads had poison pills against any sort of merger.  So you bought it, intergrated operations as best you could, and left it alone.

Sorry, the A2 looks great except for the Selkirk front end.  UGLY to the max.

Being a retired IRS agent, I'd like to chime in with some info I know.  In the early 1960s, there was a tax case litigated involving 3 railroads.  My memory may not be accurate, but I believe the parties were the PRR, the NYC, and the P&LE, and the issue was whether or not two unrelated parties (PRR and NYC), each with 50% control, could control the pricing of transactions with the commonly owned party (P&LE).

If my memory is correct, you know the P&LE owners, by law.  And, by the way, the tax issue was resolved in favor of the government by finding that PRR and NYC acted in concert to control the tax outcomes of transactions involving all the parties.