Burlington Northern Santa Fe

3.4323432343173 (1515)
Posted by r2d2 03/27/2009 @ 05:14

Tags : burlington northern santa fe, railroads, transportation, business

News headlines
BNSF, UP to upgrade lines in three states - Progressive Rail Roading
BNSF Railway Co. plans to spend about $26 million to upgrade lines in Montana and Wyoming. Two maintenance-of-way (MOW) crews currently are replacing more than 150000 ties and about 35 track miles of rail between Casper, Wyo., and Silesia, Mont....
Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Portfolio Holdings for Q1 2009 - Motley Fool
The companies where Berkshire added to positions included Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNI), Wells Fargo (WFC), US Bancorp (USB), Nalco (NLC), Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) and Union Pacific Corp (UNP). His addition to positions in Wells Fargo and US...
BNSF's Chief Financial Officer to Address Longbow Research ... - SYS-CON Media (press release)
Interested investors may listen to the presentation via a simultaneous Webcast on BNSF's Web site at www.bnsf.com. A replay will be available in the "Investors" section of the BNSF Web site shortly after the presentation ends. Burlington Northern Santa...
Fairfax Holdings' Prem Watsa Buys Berkshire Hathaway Inc ... - GuruFocus.com
Prem Watsa added to his holdings in Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. by 60.12%. His purchase prices were between $53.06 and $74.02, with an estimated average price of $62.4. The impact to his portfolio due to this purchase was 1.09%....
Reward Offered In Sugar Grove Bombing - WBBM780
SUGAR GROVE, Ill. (WBBM) -- Robert D. Grant, Special Agent-in-Charge of the Chicago office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Gerald D. Pennington, Chief of Police for Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) announced today that a...
GE Transportation Unveils New Evolution® Series Locomotive - WELT ONLINE
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway is the launch customer for this new model, and recently took delivery of 25 locomotives. Chris Roberts, BNSF Vice President of Mechanical and Value Engineering said, "We are putting these locomotives through...
Hospital loan speeds Fresno rail 'quiet zone' - Fresno Bee
By Russell Clemings / The Fresno Bee With a Burlington Northern Santa Fe train blaring its horn in the background, the Fresno City Council accepted a $600000 loan Thursday to speed plans for silencing train horns downtown and in an adjacent...
Ken Heebner Q1 Portfolio: Buys Amazon.com Inc., Best Buy Co. Inc ... - GuruFocus.com
New Purchase: Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. (BNI) Ken Heebner initiated holdings in Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp.. His purchase prices were between $53.06 and $74.02, with an estimated average price of $62.4. The impact to his portfolio due...
Quiet zone: City looks to lessen train noise - Sealy News
The main focus, he said, is the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) rail line, traveling north and south through town, which handles the most traffic through the day. “The train traffic has increased and if you do the math, there's one about every 30...
The Great Locomotive Chase - Flathead Beacon
By , 05-13-09 The news is that Burlington Northern Santa Fe has been trying to buy property in Whitefish's “Railway District.” Residents responded by hiring jet-setting tort attorney Cliff Edwards, who has a proven track record of chasing not only...

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation (NYSE: BNI) is the parent company of the BNSF Railway (formerly the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway).

The corporation was incorporated in 1993 to facilitate the merger of Burlington Northern, Incorporated, parent of the Burlington Northern Railroad, and Santa Fe Pacific Corporation, which owned the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway (Santa Fe). The corporate merger was consummated on September 22, 1995 at which point shareholders of the previous companies became shareholders of BNSF and the two companies became wholly owned subsidiaries of BNSF. In December 1996, the two holding companies and two railroads were formally merged, and in January 1998 the remaining intermediate holding company was folded into the railroad.

Robert D. Krebs of Santa Fe Pacific was president of BNSF from the merger until 1999, chief executive from the merger until 2000, and chairman from 1997 until 2002. He was succeeded in all three positions by Matthew K. Rose.

To the top



Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White

Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) was a United States Supreme Court case about sexual harassment and retaliatory discrimination.

In June 1997, Sheila White was the only woman working in the Maintenance of Way department at BNSF’s Tennessee Yard. Marvin Brown, interviewed White and expressed interest in her previous experience operating forklifts. Burlington hired White as a “track laborer,” a job that involves removing and replacing track components, transporting track material, cutting brush, and clearing litter and cargo spillage from the right-of-way. Soon after White arrived on the job, a co-worker who had previously operated the forklift chose to assume other responsibilities. Brown immediately assigned White to operate the forklift. While she also performed some of the other track laborer tasks, operating the forklift was White’s primary responsibility.

In September 1997, White complained to BNSF officials that her immediate supervisor, Bill Joiner, had repeatedly told her that women should not be working in the Maintenance of Way department. Joiner, White said, had also made insulting and inappropriate remarks to her in front of her male colleagues. After an internal investigation, Burlington suspended Joiner for 10 days and ordered him to attend a sexual-harassment training session.

On September 26, Brown told White about Joiner’s discipline. At the same time, he told White that he was removing her from forklift duty and assigning her to perform only standard track laborer tasks. Brown explained that the reassignment reflected co-worker’s complaints that, in fairness, a “‘more senior man’” should have the “less arduous and cleaner job” of forklift operator.

On October 10, White filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission). She claimed that the reassignment of her duties amounted to unlawful gender-based discrimination and retaliation for her having earlier complained about Joiner. (She had also challenged her employer's actions through a trade union grievance process.) In early December, White filed a second retaliation charge with the Commission, claiming that Brown had placed her under surveillance and was monitoring her daily activities. That charge was mailed to Brown on December 8.

A few days later, White and her immediate supervisor, Percy Sharkey, disagreed about which truck should transport White from one location to another. The specific facts of the disagreement are in dispute, but the upshot is that Sharkey told Brown later that afternoon that White had been insubordinate. Brown immediately suspended White without pay. White invoked internal grievance procedures. Those procedures led Burlington to conclude that White had not been insubordinate. Burlington reinstated White to her position and awarded her back pay for the 37 days she was suspended. White filed an additional retaliation charge with the EEOC based on the suspension.

After exhausting administrative remedies, White filed suit in federal court, where a jury rejected her claims of sex discrimination but awarded her damages of $43,000 after finding that she had been retaliated against in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On appeal, Burlington Northern argued that White had not suffered "adverse employment action," and therefore could not bring the suit, because she had not been fired, demoted, denied a promotion, or denied wages. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals initially agreed. The case was reheard en banc, however, and the full court found for White, holding that the suspension without pay - even if back pay was eventually awarded - was an "adverse employment action," as was the change of responsibilities within the same job category. The judges differed as to the standard they should apply in assessing such claims.

Some Circuits have insisted upon a close relationship between the retaliatory action and employment. Others have adopted a more restrictive approach. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the circuit split.

Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision forbids employer actions that “discriminate against” an employee (or job applicant) because he has “opposed” a practice that Title VII forbids or has “made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in” a Title VII “investigation, proceeding, or hearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–3(a).

No one doubts that the term “discriminate against” refers to distinctions or differences in treatment that injure protected individuals. See Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Ed., 544 U. S. 167, 174 (2005); Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U. S. 228, 244 (1989)(plurality opinion); see also 4 Oxford English Dictionary 758 (2d ed. 1989) (def. 3b). But different Circuits have come to different conclusions about whether the challenged action has to be employment or workplace related and about how harmful that action must be to constitute retaliation. Some Circuits have insisted upon a close relationship between the retaliatory action and employment. The Sixth Circuit majority in this case, for example, said that a plaintiff must show an “adverse employment action,” which it defined as a “materially adverse change in the terms and conditions” of employment. 364 F. 3d, at 795 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Sixth Circuit has thus joined those Courts of Appeals that apply the same standard for retaliation that they apply to a substantive discrimination offense, holding that the challenged action must “resul in an adverse effect on the ‘terms, conditions, or benefits’ of employment.” Von Gunten v. Maryland, 243 F. 3d 858, 866 (CA4 2001); see Robinson v. Pittsburgh, 120 F. 3d 1286, 1300 (CA3 1997). The Fifth and the Eighth Circuits have adopted a more restrictive approach. They employ an “ultimate employment decisio” standard, which limits actionable retaliatory conduct to acts “‘such as hiring, granting leave, discharging, promoting, and compensating.’” Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Co., 104 F. 3d 702, 707 (CA5 1997); see Manning v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 127 F. 3d 686, 692 (CA8 1997).

Other Circuits have not so limited the scope of the provision. The Seventh and the District of Columbia Circuits have said that the plaintiff must show that the “employer’s challenged action would have been material to a reasonable employee,” which in contexts like the present one means that it would likely have “dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” Washington v. Illinois Dept. of Revenue, 420 F. 3d 658, 662 (CA7 2005); see Rochon v. Gonzales, 438 F. 3d 1211, 1217–1218 (CADC 2006). And the Ninth Circuit, following EEOC guidance, has said that the plaintiff must simply establish “‘adverse treatment that is based on a retaliatory motive and is reasonably likely to deter the charging party or others from engaging in protected activity.’” Ray v. Henderson, 217 F. 3d 1234, 1242– 1243 (CA9 2000).

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve this disagreement. To do so required the Court to decide: whether Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision forbids only those employer actions and resulting harms that are related to employment or the workplace. The Court also agreed to characterize how harmful an act of retaliatory discrimination must be to fall within the provision’s scope.

The petitioner and United States Solicitor General also claimed that it is “anomalous” to read the statute to provide broader protection for victims of retaliation than for those whom Title VII primarily seeks to protect, namely, victims of race-based, ethnic-based, religion-based, or gender-based discrimination. Brief for Petitioner 17; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 14–15.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sheila White. It affirmed the decision of the Sixth Circuit, but for different reasons than those used by the lower court. Justice Breyer wrote for the majority.

The underscored words in the substantive provision—“hire,” “discharge,” “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,” “employment opportunities,”and “status as an employee”—explicitly limit the scope of that provision to actions that affect employment or alter the conditions of the workplace. No such limiting words appear in the anti-retaliation provision. Given these linguistic differences, the question here is not whether identical or similar words should be read in pari materia to mean the same thing. Rather, the question is whether Congress intended its different words to make a legal difference. The Supreme Court normally presumes that, where words differ as they differ here, “‘Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.’” Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983).

There is strong reason to believe that Congress intended the differences that its language suggests, for the two provisions differ not only in language but in purpose as well. The anti-discrimination provision seeks a workplace where individuals are not discriminated against because of their racial, ethnic, religious, or gender-based status. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 800–801 (1973). The anti-retaliation provision seeks to secure that primary objective by preventing an employer from interfering (through retaliation) with an employee’s efforts to secure or advance enforcement of the Act’s basic guarantees. The substantive provision seeks to prevent injury to individuals based on who they are, i.e., their status. The anti-retaliation provision seeks to prevent harm to individuals based on what they do, i.e., their conduct.

To secure the first objective, Congress did not need to prohibit anything other than employment-related discrimination. The substantive provision’s basic objective of “equality of employment opportunities” and the elimination of practices that tend to bring about “stratified job environments,” id., at 800, would be achieved were all employment-related discrimination miraculously eliminated.

But one cannot secure the second objective by focusing only upon employer actions and harm that concern employment and the workplace. Were all such actions and harms eliminated, the anti-retaliation provision’s objective would not be achieved. An employer can effectively retaliate against an employee by taking actions not directly related to his employment or by causing him harm outside the workplace. See, e.g., Rochon v. Gonzales, 438 F. 3d, at 1213 (FBI retaliation against employee “took the form of the FBI’s refusal, contrary to policy, to investigate death threats a federal prisoner made against and his wife”); Berry v. Stevinson Chevrolet, 74 F. 3d 980, 984, 986 (CA10 1996) (finding actionable retaliation where employer filed false criminal charges against former employee who complained about discrimination). A provision limited to employment-related actions would not deter the many forms that effective retaliation can take. Hence, such a limited construction would fail to fully achieve the anti-retaliation provision’s “primary purpose,” namely, “aintaining unfettered access to statutory remedial mechanisms.” Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U. S. 337, 346 (1997).

Thus, purpose reinforces what language already indicates, namely, that the anti-retaliation provision, unlike the substantive provision, is not limited to discriminatory actions that affect the terms and conditions of employment. Cf. Wachovia Bank, N. A. v. Schmidt, 546 U. S. ___ (2006) (slip op., at 14) (rejecting statutory construction that would “trea venue and subject-matter jurisdiction prescriptions as in pari materia” because doing so would “overloo the discrete offices of those concepts”).

Congress has provided similar kinds of protection from retaliation in comparable statutes without any judicial suggestion that those provisions are limited to the conduct prohibited by the primary substantive provisions. The National Labor Relations Act, to which the Supreme Court has “drawn analogies . . . in other Title VII contexts,” Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U. S. 69, 76, n. 8 (1984), provides an illustrative example. Compare 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3) (substantive provision prohibiting employer “discrimination in regard to . . . any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization”) with §158(a)(4) (retaliation provision making it unlawful for an employer to “discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee because he has filed charges or given testimony under this subchapter”); see also Bill Johnson’s Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U. S. 731, 740 (1983) (construing anti-retaliation provision to “prohibi a wide variety of employer conduct that is intended to restrain, or that has the likely effect of restraining, employees in the exercise of protected activities,” including the retaliatory filing of a lawsuit against an employee); NLRB v. Scrivener, 405 U.S. 117, 121–122 (1972) (purpose of the anti-retaliation provision is to ensure that employees are “‘completely free from coercion against reporting’” unlawful practices).

In any event, differences in the purpose of the two provisions remove any perceived “anomaly,” for they justify this difference of interpretation. Title VII depends for its enforcement upon the cooperation of employees who are willing to file complaints and act as witnesses. “Plainly, effective enforcement could thus only be expected if employees felt free to approach officials with their grievances.” Mitchell v. Robert DeMario Jewelry, Inc., 361 U. S. 288, 292 (1960). Interpreting the anti-retaliation provision to provide broad protection from retaliation helps assure the cooperation upon which accomplishment of the Act’s primary objective depends.

The Courts of Appeals had used differing language to describe the level of seriousness to which retaliatory harm must rise before it becomes actionable retaliation. The Supreme Court agreed with the formulation set forth by the Seventh and the District of Columbia Circuits. A plaintiff must show that a reasonable employee would have found the challenged action materially adverse, “which in this context means it well might have ‘dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.’” Rochon, 438 F. 3d, at 1219 (quoting Washington, 420 F. 3d, at 662).

The Court spoke of material adversity because it believed it was important to separate significant from trivial harms. Title VII does not set forth “a general civility code for the American workplace.” Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U. S. 75, 80 (1998); see Faragher, 524 U. S., at 788 (judicial standards for sexual harassment must “filter out complaints attacking ‘the ordinary tribulations of the workplace, such as the sporadic use of abusive language, gender-related jokes, and occasional teasing’”). An employee’s decision to report discriminatory behavior cannot immunize that employee from those petty slights or minor annoyances that often take place at work and that all employees experience. See 1 B. Lindemann & P. Grossman, Employment Discrimination Law 669 (3d ed. 1996) (noting that “courts have held that personality conflicts at work that generate antipathy” and “‘snubbing’ by supervisors and co-workers” are not actionable under §704(a)). The anti-retaliation provision seeks to prevent employer interference with “unfettered access” to Title VII’s remedial mechanisms. Robinson, 519 U. S., at 346. It does so by prohibiting employer actions that are likely “to deter victims of discrimination from complaining to the EEOC,” the courts, and their employers. Ibid. And normally petty slights, minor annoyances, and simple lack of good manners will not create such deterrence. See 2 EEOC 1998 Manual §8, p. 8–13.

The Court referred to the reactions of a reasonable employee because it believed that the provision’s standard for judging harm must be objective. An objective standard is judicially administrable. It avoids the uncertainties and unfair discrepancies that can plague a judicial effort to determine a plaintiff’s unusual subjective feelings.

The Court made the standard in general terms because the significance of any given act of retaliation will often depend upon the particular circumstances. Context matters. “The real social impact of workplace behavior often depends on a constellation of surrounding circumstances, expectations, and relationships which are not fully captured by a simple recitation of the words used or the physical acts performed.” Oncale, supra, at 81–82. A schedule change in an employee’s work schedule may make little difference to many workers, but may matter enormously to a young mother with school age children. Cf., e.g., Washington, supra, at 662 (finding flex-time schedule critical to employee with disabled child). A supervisor’s refusal to invite an employee to lunch is normally trivial, a nonactionable petty slight. But to retaliate by excluding an employee from a weekly training lunch that contributes significantly to the employee’s professional advancement might well deter a reasonable employee from complaining about discrimination. See 2 EEOC 1998 Manual §8, p. 8–14. Hence, a legal standardthat speaks in general terms rather than specific prohibited acts is preferable, for an “act that would be immaterial in some situations is material in others.” Washington, supra, at 661.

The majority noted that contrary to the claim of the concurrence, this standard does not require a reviewing court or jury to consider “the nature of the discrimination that led to the filing of the charge.” Post, at 6 (ALITO, J., concurring in judgment). Rather, the standard is tied to the challenged retaliatory act, not the underlying conduct that forms the basis of the Title VII complaint. By focusing on the materiality of the challenged action and the perspective of a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position, the Court believed this standard will screen out trivial conduct while effectively capturing those acts that are likely to dissuade employees from complaining or assisting in complaints about discrimination.

To the top



Burlington Northern Santa Fe Manitoba

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Manitoba (BNSF Manitoba) is a Canadian subsidiary railroad of BNSF Railway.

The railway traces its history to the Midland Railway of Manitoba which was incorporated in 1903 and built various lines around Winnipeg. The operations of the company were acquired by the Manitoba Great Northern Railway, a subsidiary of the Great Northern Railway (GN) on July 1, 1909.

The line to the International Boundary at Noyes, Minnesota was sold to the Canadian National Railway (CN), although the GN maintained trackage rights over it to access its tracks in Winnipeg.

After the GN was merged into the Burlington Northern Railroad in 1970, the name of the MGNR was changed to Burlington Northern Manitoba Ltd. in 1971. The last name change was to Burlington Northern Santa Fe (Manitoba) took place in 1999, following the merger of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway in 1996.

To the top



BNSF Railway

An eastbound BNSF Railway train passes some maintenance of way equipment in Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, August 8, 2004. The lead unit is painted in the Heritage II scheme.

The BNSF Railway (reporting mark BNSF), often referred to (and formerly known) as the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway, headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas, is one of the four remaining transcontinental railroads and one of the largest railroad networks in North America. Only the Union Pacific Railroad is larger in size. With globalization, the transcontinental railroads are a key component in the containerization of trade from the Pacific Rim. The BNSF Railway moves more intermodal freight traffic than any other rail system in the world.

It was formed December 31, 1996, as the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway when the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway was merged into the Burlington Northern Railroad. In 1999 the BNSF Railway and the Canadian National Railway announced their intention to merge and form a new corporation entitled the North American Railways to be headquartered in Montreal, Canada. The United States' Surface Transportation Board (STB) placed a 15-month moratorium on all rail mergers, which ended this merger. On January 24, 2005, the railroad's name was officially changed to BNSF Railway.

The BNSF Railway is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation, the holding company formed by the September 22, 1995 merger of Burlington Northern, Incorporated and the Santa Fe Pacific Corporation. According to corporate press releases, the BNSF Railway is among the top transporters of intermodal freight in North America. It moves more grain than any other American railroad. It also hauls enough coal to generate roughly 10% of the electricity produced in the United States. The company's northern route completes the high-speed link from the western to eastern United States.

The BNSF Railway directly owns and operates track in 27 U.S. states: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The railway also operates a small amount of track in Canada, including an approximate 30-mile (48 kilometer) section that runs from the U.S.-Canada border to Vancouver, British Columbia, a yard in Winnipeg, Manitoba, and approximately 70 miles of joint track with the Canadian National Railway, which runs south to the U.S. border.

For administrative purposes, BNSF is divided into fourteen operating divisions: California, Chicago, Colorado, Gulf, Kansas, Los Angeles, Montana, Nebraska, Northwest, Powder River, Southwest, Springfield, Texas, and Twin Cities. Each division is further divided into hundreds of subdivisions, which represent segments of track ranging from 300-mile mainlines to 10-mile branch-lines.

Not including second, third and fourth main-line trackage, yard trackage, and siding trackage, BNSF directly owns and operates over 24,000 miles (38,624 kilometers) of track. When these additional tracks are counted, the length of track which the railway directly controls rises to more than 50,000 miles (80,467 kilometers).

Additionally, BNSF Railway has gained trackage rights on more than 8,000 miles (12,875 kilometers) of track throughout the United States and Canada. These rights allow the BNSF to operate its own trains with its own crews on competing railroads' main tracks. BNSF locomotives also occasionally show up on competitors' tracks throughout the United States and Canada by way of lease and other contractual arrangements.

BNSF operates various facilities all over the United States to support its transportation system. Facilities operated by the railway include yards and terminals throughout its rail network, system locomotive shops to perform locomotive service and maintenance, a centralized operations center for train dispatching and network operations monitoring in Fort Worth, and regional dispatching centers.

The BNSF Railway also operates numerous transfer facilities throughout the western United States to facilitate the transfer of intermodal containers, trailers, and other freight traffic. The BNSF Railway has direct control over a total of 33 intermodal hubs and 23 automotive distribution facilities. On February 9, 2005, BNSF announced that it plans to build a new intermodal transfer facility near the port of Los Angeles called the Southern California International Gateway. The new facility, with direct rail access to the recently constructed Alameda Corridor, would supplement the container transloading abilities of the Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF) built by Southern Pacific in the 1990s.

Large freight car hump yards are also scattered throughout the BNSF system. In 2005, Argentine Yard in Kansas City, Kansas processed the most freight cars. Further on, there is a list of currently operating BNSF Hump Yards.

The BNSF mechanical division operates eight locomotive maintenance facilities that perform preventive maintenance, repairs and servicing of equipment. The largest of these facilities are located in Alliance, Nebraska and Topeka, Kansas. The mechanical division also controls 46 additional facilities responsible for car maintenance and daily running repairs.

The BNSF system mechanical division, a subset of the mechanical division, operates two maintenance-of-way work equipment shops, responsible for performing repairs and preventive maintenance to BNSF's track and equipment, in Brainerd, Minnesota and Galesburg, Illinois. The system mechanical division also operates the Western Fruit Express Company's refrigerated car repair shop in Spokane, Washington.

In 2006, BNSF teamed with Vancouver, WA-based Tri Star to run BNSF's new transload facility in Fontana, CA, near the California Speedway.

As one of the leading supporters of the Operation Lifesaver program to promote safety at railway crossings and right-of-ways, the BNSF Railway, in 2000, established a grade-crossing closure program. This program, wherein BNSF works with communities and landowners to identify crossings that are unnecessary or redundant, has helped close over 2,900 of BNSF's railway crossings throughout the United States. Due to the program, BNSF has been the industry leader in lowering the number of grade-crossing collisions.

On June 7, 2006, BNSF became the first Class I railroad to recruit railfans to help ensure the company's rail network remains safe. Called the Citizens United for Rail Security (CRS), BNSF designed a program that encourages railfans to register on an official company website. They can print out a small identification card, containing a list of general safety guidelines for a railfan to follow, as well as a toll-free telephone number to alert a BNSF representative of suspicious activities or potential security breaches.

BNSF has had a similar program for employees since 2003. The BNSF ON GUARD program has been highly successful, with over 200 employees reporting suspicious activities since its inception.

BNSF also contracts with News Link, a small business in Lincoln, Nebraska, to publish employee newsletters focused on safety for each of the railroad's 14 operating divisions and nearly all of its system shops. These newsletters vary in length from 4 to 28 pages, published ranging from monthly to quarterly.

According to BNSF's 2007 Annual Report to Investors, at the end of 2007, the railway had more than 40,000 employees; 6,400 locomotives; and 85,338 freight cars.

At the end of 2007, the average age (from date of manufacture) was 15 years for the BNSF's locomotive fleet and 14 years for the freight car fleet.

On any given day, BNSF is the single largest consumer of petroleum-based fuels in the world. The only larger consumer is the US Navy during a full-force wartime deployment.

On January 24, 2006, BNSF announced a $2.4 billion program of infrastructure upgrades for 2006. The upgrade program includes: double- and triple-tracking 40 miles (64 km) of track and a second mainline track through New Mexico's Abo Canyon on the former Santa Fe Railroad transcontinental line; expanding the Lincoln, Nebraska, classification yard and double- and triple-tracking 50 miles (80 km) of track in Wyoming's Powder River Basin region; expansions at eight of the railroad's larger intermodal facilities, and extending many sidings and expanding and improving refueling facilities. In making the announcement, BNSF chairman Matthew K. Rose cited improvements in the company's return on invested capital, and expressed hope for continued improvement. In March, 2008, the railroad was completing the triple-tracking of Cajon Pass in California, creating four tracks through the pass--three BNSF (former Santa Fe and newly installed) and one Union Pacific (former Southern Pacific).

The assortment of colors used on the BNSF makes it one of the most colorful large railroads in North America. Many locomotives, sometimes called "Pumpkins," are painted in "Heritage I" or "Heritage II" schemes, which are based on the Great Northern Railway's colors of orange and dark green. In 2005 the company introduced the "New Image" paint scheme. Some locomotives were painted in Santa Fe's famous silver-and-red "Warbonnet" scheme, sometimes with "BNSF" painted on the sides instead of "Santa Fe." Even more locomotives continued to wear the green-and-white or blue-and-yellow colors of the two railroads that merged to create BNSF. The company plans to paint all engines in Heritage colors as they undergo overhauls.

On January 24, 2005, the railroad introduced a new logo to replace the circle and cross logo of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway. The new logo symbolizes the railroad's goals to be "a leader in transportation service and innovation." This logo marks the step away from the more verbose Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway moniker displayed in the old logo. The "New Image" paint scheme featured the new logo painted on the nose and sides of the locomotive and black stripes instead of green. BNSF has also rolled out a number of freight cars featuring the new company logo. Most railfans call this paint the swoosh paint scheme.

The Heritage I scheme features a central orange stripe along the sides of the locomotive with dark green above and below, separated by thin yellow bands. The original company logo is painted on the front and "BNSF" is painted in the side in dark green. The Heritage II scheme (pictured to right) features a larger orange stripe with "BNSF" in yellow. The yellow bands separating orange and green are thicker and divided into three parts. Instead of the company logo, an adaptation of the "cigar band" from the Santa Fe warbonnet scheme is used on the front, with "BNSF" painted across it. The "New Image" scheme, sometimes referred to as Heritage III, is similar to Heritage II except that black replaces green, and the new company logo is painted on both the front and sides of the locomotive.

To the top



Source : Wikipedia