gmpullmanFrom what I recall it was the containers themselves and not related to the cars.
Not even that sophisticated. They didn't have any issue with the mechanical or the operational concept. It was entirely a rate issue. The railroads wanted to use one rate, the ICC wanted to use another, and the shippers were caught in the middle. Eventually, they went with the ICC rate (to no one's surprise), which ruined what was making the costs work for the shippers.
I have a few Ambroid cars of a different design than the one shown, they are NYC cars.
Shock ControlI think the ICC had an issue with these cars.
From what I recall it was the containers themselves and not related to the cars. Early proponents of the system wanted to see full interchangability of the containers across several lines, offering more destinations for LCL freight.
PRRFM by Edmund, on Flickr
Actually the PRR used an ingenious four-point "spreader" that the crane operator could snag and release without anyone on the ground having to make any "hook-ups". Think today's container lifts are a modern design? They had a forerunner.
NYC complained that they were not equipped to handle the Keystone containers and used this excuse to refuse to handle the PRR equipment. Same kind of proprietary bickering that carries on today in many industries.
Regards, Ed
As I think about it, I think the ICC had an issue with these cars.
gmpullman Banned from interchange? I'm not aware of any of these cars being banned unless there's more context to the statement I'm missing? "Generally" the cars weren't often interchanged as they were in captive service on the PRR but as far as I know the cars met all AAR rules for interchange.
Banned from interchange? I'm not aware of any of these cars being banned unless there's more context to the statement I'm missing?
"Generally" the cars weren't often interchanged as they were in captive service on the PRR but as far as I know the cars met all AAR rules for interchange.
Thanks for the detail. Again, I'm going from memory, so the details could be wrong.
In January, 1950 there were still 625 FM container flat cars listed as serviceable. By January of 1956 the number was down to 16 and by 1956, none.
The PRR and NYC were actually considering a partnership, The LCL Corporation, in the fall of 1928 that would provide a standardized container. The PRR was not satisfied with ownership percentages and quickly formed its own company, The Keystone Container Car Co.
By 1931 there were 632 FM flat cars converted to container service growing to around 870 in 1936.
Gondolas on the other hand lasted into the merger years (1968) with 206 G22b still in service and 85 G36e. The gondolas were used for transporting the bulk containers used for shipping such commodities as cement, dolomite, coke or coal.
prr_FM1 by Edmund, on Flickr
Cheers, Ed
A few years back, there was a discussion about the intermodal container cars that the Pennsylvania Railroad used in the early 20th century. I may be misremembering, but I thought I read that these were banned from the interchange in the early 1930s, for reasons that were never entirely clear.
I was watching on YouTube this PRR film called Clear Track Ahead from 1946. At around the 4:58 mark, they mention container cars as among the types of freight cars they use.
So my question is, how long exactly were these cars in use?
One other curiosity: At one point in the film, the logos of several railroads are displayed, and the New York Central logo was surprisingly included in a PRR film.