Dan Conway, head of the Phoenix-Durango in Atlas Shrugged, was evidently a superb executive. He also receives (largely) positive treatment in the novel. However, the book also says that he initially went along with the industry group behind the anti-dog-eat-dog rule, and the novel gives several other indications that the author's not trying to present him as being 100% positive.
First, is there any significance to the fact that his railroad wasn't named after him? The "good" characters all named their companies after themselves (Wyatt Oil, Rearden Steel, Taggart Transcontinental, etc.) and the "bad" characters' companies had generic-sounding names (Associated Steel, Amalgamated Switch and Signal, etc.), so is the generic-sounding name evidence that we're supposed to have a negative view of Dan Conway - that he represents people who just "caved" morally?
Secondly, he definitely never joined the strikers (he wasn't in Galt's Gulch when Dagney was shown around, and Eddie is able to track him down towards the end of the novel), and there's no evidence either way about whether John Galt ever approached him (in fact, he seems to have quit on his own without any of the strikers having met with him).
That being said, why didn't Dan Conway ever join the strike? Why didn't the novel say whether he was asked to join? Would John Galt have been likely to have asked him to join? (It seems like an odd omission given that Dagney asked him to stay and fight and Eddie tracked him down to ask him to help Taggart Transcontinental).
How does Ayn Rand want us to view this character? Is he basically a good person who "caved" under pressure from the looters?
I'm asking specifically about authorial intent here.