I understand that BNSF “owns” a line of track that runs between Vancouver, BC, and Seattle. It appears that this agreement is different, for example, from a Soo Line, who is a US road but is/was a subsidiary of CP Rail, or a Central Vermont/Grand Trunk/Delaware & Hudson who are US holding companies (true?) for CN Rail. The old SD&AE ran, I believe, through a sliver of Mexico before ending up in the US. So, my question is: How is BNSF (or any other US road) allowed to “own” such trackage? Is there a Canadian holding company I’m not aware of? How was the Mexican section of SD&AE administered? How are these arrangements (if they are different) different from the “holding company” concept?
Yes there is a separate company owning the BNSF track in British Columbia, because of the short distance it is just a “paper” company. It has employees and files reports with the Canadian Government but because it is small and hence in the scheme of things doesn’t earn large amounts of money it is invisible as a separate company. The Soo Line and CN’s US subsidiaries are large enough to be
Class I railroads by themselves. Because of this they are of necessity more than paper railroads. The segment of the SD&AE in Mexico is owned by the Tijuana & Tecate which is owned by Mexican interests. SD&AE had rights to operate over the line. Another “paper” railroad you may not have heard of is the Minnesota & Manitoba a subsidiary of CN that owns a small piece of the CN mainline between Winnipeg and Thunder Bay where it crosses into Minnesota to get around Lake of the Woods. Another BNSF segment is Burlington Northern Manitoba Ltd. which owns the BNSF trackage in the Winnipeg area. BTW - The Delaware & Hudson is a subsidiary of the Soo Line now, a part of the CP family not CN.
The Napierville Junction Ry exists for the same reason with the D&H trackage in Canada and I’m sure that there’s a few other odds and ends in other places.
A similar arrangement formerly existed with the State of Texas. The state constitution required that railroads that operated in Texas had to be incorporated in Texas, which led to such subsidiaries as Panhandle & Santa Fe; Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe; Texas & New Orleans and others. That particular clause was stricken as conflicting with the United States Constitution during the Missouri Pacific bankruptcy re-organization.