Passenger service had nothing to do with LCL and it demise....the rise of trucks without the need for transloading had more to do with it as did Flying Tiger Airlines and Emery Air Freight. Even though often the passenger agent was also a freight agent in rural areas, the general movement of small lots by truck was more a factor. Even manufactureres with their own truck fleet.
And if Flying Tiger and Emery are hard names to swallow in LCL shipping, try Purolator for small package delivery! It will all filter through.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Fascinating subject for those of us interested in the science and art of moving freight.
Greyhound...about a year ago I came across a copy of the Originating and Traffic of Illinois Central System on line and didnt purchase it. Would you recommend it?I have a similar type of book called The Station Agent's Blue Book which is a handbook (hardcover 522 pages) dealing with the responsibilities of a local station agent. Lots of stuff in there about handling shipment, including LCL and head end traffic.
Years ago, the first step of my working career was with a small LTL carrier that delivered freight in and out of Chicago, including to the freight forwarders of the world. I recall Merchants. Will have to dig out some of my old routing guides and Leonards Guides. Clipper is still around, having survived, in fact I have an appointment next week with Clipper in Chicago. Lifschultz did considerable business between Chicago and NYC. Many old photos of passenger trains on the south side of Chicago show the LFF freight house...and others.
Ed
Deggesty And, at times a shipment which did not fill a car would still be sent in a boxcar. I once had to help unload a shiment of flour that did not cover the floor at one end of a boxcar. It may have been that the milling company sent shipments to several stores in that car, but would it have been possible to keep them separate? The car did not have a smooth floor, and I had to pick splinters out of one sack (100 pounds) and sew the rip up.
And, at times a shipment which did not fill a car would still be sent in a boxcar. I once had to help unload a shiment of flour that did not cover the floor at one end of a boxcar. It may have been that the milling company sent shipments to several stores in that car, but would it have been possible to keep them separate? The car did not have a smooth floor, and I had to pick splinters out of one sack (100 pounds) and sew the rip up.
Yes, another method for handling shipments that did not use a full railcar was to stop the car for partial unloading (or loading). This is still common in truckload movements today.
Instead of paying for three 10,000 pound LCL shipments the shipper could find that paying the full carload rate on 30,000 to the farthest destination would be less costly. (LCL rates were higher per pound than carload rates.)
The car would be billed out with instructions to stop the car for partial unloading at two intermediate points. The car would leave the shipper with its 30,000 pound load and first move to the closest stop point. There the consignee would remove 10,000 pounds of product. The railroad would then move the car to the second stop where that consignee would remove another 10,000 pounds. Then the railroad would move the car to the "Final" or last consignee who would empty the car.
Such a routing would be said to have had "Two stops and a final." There could be one or more stops en route and the stops could be for partial loading or unloading.
This was not LCL service. The freight car never saw a railroad freighthouse and carload, not LCL, charges applied.
greyhounds Deggesty: And, at times a shipment which did not fill a car would still be sent in a boxcar. I once had to help unload a shiment of flour that did not cover the floor at one end of a boxcar. It may have been that the milling company sent shipments to several stores in that car, but would it have been possible to keep them separate? The car did not have a smooth floor, and I had to pick splinters out of one sack (100 pounds) and sew the rip up. Yes, another method for handling shipments that did not use a full railcar was to stop the car for partial unloading (or loading). This is still common in truckload movements today. Instead of paying for three 10,000 pound LCL shipments the shipper could find that paying the full carload rate on 30,000 to the farthest destination would be less costly. (LCL rates were higher per pound than carload rates.) The car would be billed out with instructions to stop the car for partial unloading at two intermediate points. The car would leave the shipper with its 30,000 pound load and first move to the closest stop point. There the consignee would remove 10,000 pounds of product. The railroad would then move the car to the second stop where that consignee would remove another 10,000 pounds. Then the railroad would move the car to the "Final" or last consignee who would empty the car. Such a routing would be said to have had "Two stops and a final." There could be one or more stops en route and the stops could be for partial loading or unloading. This was not LCL service. The freight car never saw a railroad freighthouse and carload, not LCL, charges applied.
Deggesty: And, at times a shipment which did not fill a car would still be sent in a boxcar. I once had to help unload a shiment of flour that did not cover the floor at one end of a boxcar. It may have been that the milling company sent shipments to several stores in that car, but would it have been possible to keep them separate? The car did not have a smooth floor, and I had to pick splinters out of one sack (100 pounds) and sew the rip up.
Johnny
MP173 Fascinating subject for those of us interested in the science and art of moving freight. Greyhound...about a year ago I came across a copy of the Originating and Traffic of Illinois Central System on line and didnt purchase it. Would you recommend it?Ed
Greyhound...about a year ago I came across a copy of the Originating and Traffic of Illinois Central System on line and didnt purchase it. Would you recommend it?Ed
Yes, I would recommend the book. I wouldn't pay an exhorbitant amount for a copy, but if it's in your price range I think you'll find it very informative and interesting.
The book was produced for use in training the railroad's sales and traffic (marketing) people. It does not go into how to fire a 2-10-2 or allign track. But there are chapters dealing with the functions of the operating department, the transportation department, perishable services, rate territories, divisions, etc
It has seperate chapters on different traffic groups. i.e. coal, lumber, rates and transit on grain, (I'll give you a gold star if you know what "Transit" meant in a rail tariff.), rates and transit on cotton, livestock and packing house products, merchandise (LCL), and others. It will tell you how this stuff was moved in 1938.
It has a lot more information, including chapters on intercity passenger service, head end service and the Chicago suburban service. The latter has a fold out map.
"The science and art of moving freight?" I have never thought of it as an art before, but I like the phrase and believe it to be very appropriate.
"Passenger service had nothing to do with LCL and it demise....the rise of trucks without the need for transloading had more to do with it as did Flying Tiger Airlines and Emery Air Freight. Even though often the passenger agent was also a freight agent in rural areas, the general movement of small lots by truck was more a factor. Even manufacturers with their own truck fleet.
And if Flying Tiger and Emery are hard names to swallow in LCL shipping, try Purolator for small package delivery! It will all filter through."
Try again Henry. Air freight could not possibly have done in rail LCL. Even today it cannot compete with trucks on a cost basis. Without military biz neither would have made it even a couple of years.
And Purolator? They came along in 1967. Long after LCL service was a dead loser where it even existed.
Greyhound:Probably going to take me awhile to find it again. I checked Ebay and Abe last night...nothing. Should have pulled the trigger on it, as much as I enjoy both IC and "traffic".
If you run across a copy, let me know.
Regarding the "science and art" comment. Partly tongue in cheek, but as we both know there is a system involved in moving LTL or LCL freight. Developing that system is not rocket science, but simply considerable work and revisions. No doubt considerably easier today with the vast IT infrastructure available. However, at some point in time, human interaction should be able to overrule the system. That would be the "art" aspect.
Not sure if that "art" aspect still applies, I have been long gone from the industry (20 years)...enjoyed it, but it was a brutal industry during the 80's as companies left the areana.
Flying Tiger of course became Fed Ex...I'm not sure what happened to Emery...but, yes, air freight was more LCL than car or trailer load...rarely was ther full plane load. And yes, Puralator came later as they were, as I was told around the EL, that since these guys were running along the same routes as EL needed payrolls and other company mail, an agreement was struck. I don't know if it was only because of the lack of passenger trains with somewhat reliable schedules or it was cheaper than the US Postal Service or both. But, you're right. it was never involved in LCL but just a name I thought I'd throw in the pot in talking parcel delivery...another name was, of course, Grayhound Bus, which did a lot of small town hopping with their parcel service.
duplicate
wanswheel Engineering and Contracting for October 18, 1922 http://books.google.com/books?id=SqXmAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA378#v=onepage&q&f=true New Freight Shipping System by "Container Cars" of New York Central Lines The new system of freight shipping by "container cars," just inaugurated regularly after exhaustive tests on the New York Central Lines, was described in an address delivered Oct. 10 by F. S. Gallagher, Engineer of Rolling Stock, before the Society of Terminal Engineers at New York. The steel "containers" give the shippers of less-than-car-load lots all the advantages of the carload shipment and additional benefits, through carrying shipments under utmost protection against pilferage or damage from the door of the sender clear to the door of the receiver. The "containers" are steel boxes, six to nine of which fit sectionally upon a car behind low steel walls which absolutely prevent their opening in transit. They are hoisted between motor truck and car by means of cranes, thus quickly releasing rolling stock and preventing congestion of platforms or tracks at terminals. The "containers" have been used regularly in carrying United States mail for over a year without any loss or damage whatever to valuable consignments; have reduced necessity of sacking mail and have greatly expedited inter-city deliveries. The "containers" permit a shipper to stow consignments on his own shipping platform and eliminate need of costly boxing and crating.
Engineering and Contracting for October 18, 1922
http://books.google.com/books?id=SqXmAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA378#v=onepage&q&f=true
New Freight Shipping System by "Container Cars" of New York Central Lines
The new system of freight shipping by "container cars," just inaugurated regularly after exhaustive tests on the New York Central Lines, was described in an address delivered Oct. 10 by F. S. Gallagher, Engineer of Rolling Stock, before the Society of Terminal Engineers at New York.
The steel "containers" give the shippers of less-than-car-load lots all the advantages of the carload shipment and additional benefits, through carrying shipments under utmost protection against pilferage or damage from the door of the sender clear to the door of the receiver. The "containers" are steel boxes, six to nine of which fit sectionally upon a car behind low steel walls which absolutely prevent their opening in transit. They are hoisted between motor truck and car by means of cranes, thus quickly releasing rolling stock and preventing congestion of platforms or tracks at terminals. The "containers" have been used regularly in carrying United States mail for over a year without any loss or damage whatever to valuable consignments; have reduced necessity of sacking mail and have greatly expedited inter-city deliveries. The "containers" permit a shipper to stow consignments on his own shipping platform and eliminate need of costly boxing and crating.
I won't repeat in full this marvelous document posted by wanswheel. You may read it for youself in his post. I'll only note two observations. The first observation is about this part of the document:
wanswheel May Be Handled on Ships. - An important feature of the container system is its adaptability to water transportation. Containers can be loaded, transferred by rail, and lowered into the hold of a ship without necessity of handling small packages, saving man-power and space. Let us take, for example, a shipment from China of silk, which is one of the most valuable of commodities, to New York. There is no reason why the container system should not be extended to a shipment of this kind, the container being loaded in China, placed on the boat, unloaded at San Francisco, and transferred by rail to New York with contents not touched. This would permit a shipment of this kind to come by regular freight, secure at all times from tampering or damage, because it is not possible to open the doors without taking the containers off the cars. Such interchange with foreign countries is a possibility of the future. .
May Be Handled on Ships. - An important feature of the container system is its adaptability to water transportation. Containers can be loaded, transferred by rail, and lowered into the hold of a ship without necessity of handling small packages, saving man-power and space.
Let us take, for example, a shipment from China of silk, which is one of the most valuable of commodities, to New York. There is no reason why the container system should not be extended to a shipment of this kind, the container being loaded in China, placed on the boat, unloaded at San Francisco, and transferred by rail to New York with contents not touched. This would permit a shipment of this kind to come by regular freight, secure at all times from tampering or damage, because it is not possible to open the doors without taking the containers off the cars. Such interchange with foreign countries is a possibility of the future.
.
The New York Central saw the future of freight with 20/20 vision in 1922.
The other observation is that Mr. F.S. Gallager said that there had been no adequate costing done because the container service was too new. (how railroad of him to use initials instead of names)
But that was in 1922. By 1930 they had the costs. Here's a comparison of moving LCL in a container vs a boxcar in 1930:
Source: Cheng Shih Hsu, Status and Problems of Co-ordinated Rail-Motor Service in the United States. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1932) p. 147.
As you may see the a savings of the container system were overwhelming. Note the total absence of freight damage (freight claims) using the containers. The cost of moving freight using such a system was less than 1/4th the cost of the boxcar LCL system. (Platform costs were basically the labor of unloading and loading the boxcars by "manlift". "Road Haul" means terminal to terminal movement on the rail, not over the road pick up and delivery.)
Cost savings were being passed on the the customers (because of competition) and this was giving a boost to the US economy when that economy really needed boosting. The container system was expanding rapidly. In 1930!
Then the government economic regulators just put a stop to it all in 1931 by ordering the container rates increased to a point where container service became a non-factor. I've never seen anyone come up with a good reason why they would do such a thing. After several decades, I can only conclude that the people in Washington, DC had no idea what they were doing while the New York Central folks fully understood the situation and could clearly see what would happen in the years and decades to come.
The people of the United States suffered because of their own government. The New York Central was not allowed to adapt to a changing economic environment and it became extinct.
another duplicate.
Follow the money trail. Perhaps the ICC did what they did because the young trucking industry had more pull? Just a thought.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Business regulation often has a political component. It's possible that there still was a strong public antipathy to railroads as businesses that influenced that 1931 decision regarding containers.
The paper referenced below asserts that the ICC's goal was to protect the weaker railroads from ruin - who protested the PRR's usage of containers in that instance - and "save" the health of the entire railroad industry, regardless of the loss of efficiency by one carrier. See just the summary/ abstract on the top half of the 1st page to see that for yourself. - PDN.
Paul_D_North_Jr greyhounds, thanks for those histories above - both Merchant Shippers' and yours - and those insights. I expect that you're aware of the paper I'll cite and link to below, but others may not be, and may be interested in seeing it - it's only 16 pages (approx. 95 KB in size), and not too tough of a read. A big thanks to Mike/ wanswheel for finding and posting at the current end of the thread here at the bottom of page 2 of 2 on "Question about Gondola Load" at: http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/t/156787.aspx?PageIndex=2 "Saving the Railroad Industry to Death: The Interstate Commerce Commission, the Pennsylvania Railroad, and the Unfulfilled Promise of Rail-Truck Cooperation" by Albert Churella, Assoc. Prof. in Social and International Studies at Southern Polytechnic State University, as published by the Business History Conference in "Business and Economic History On-Line", Vol. 4, 2006, at: http://www.h-net.org/~business/bhcweb/publications/BEHonline/2006/churella.pdf and/ or, http://www.thebhc.org/publications/BEHonline/2006/churella.pdf - Paul North.
"Saving the Railroad Industry to Death: The Interstate Commerce Commission, the Pennsylvania Railroad, and the Unfulfilled Promise of Rail-Truck Cooperation" by Albert Churella, Assoc. Prof. in Social and International Studies at Southern Polytechnic State University, as published by the Business History Conference in "Business and Economic History On-Line", Vol. 4, 2006, at:
http://www.h-net.org/~business/bhcweb/publications/BEHonline/2006/churella.pdf
and/ or,
http://www.thebhc.org/publications/BEHonline/2006/churella.pdf
- Paul North.
Business regulation ALWAYS has a political component. If it didn't it would not be regulated.
CSSHEGEWISCH Business regulation often has a political component. It's possible that there still was a strong public antipathy to railroads as businesses that influenced that 1931 decision regarding containers.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BURGLAR-PROOF CARS PUT IN MAIL SERVICE
The New York Times, Jan. 21, 1922
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F00716FD3A541B7A93C3AB178AD85F468285F9
Even in the 50's and 60's there were those who believed the evil rail barrons of the late 19th and early 20th Century were still at the helm raping industry and farmers of their hard earned profits. And they were being fed the propaganda of the highway/oil lobby that King Rail was evil, that the only real way for an American to be free was to have a go at the open road be it to haul his family wherever they wanted to go or raw materials and manufactured goods where it needed to be.
Paul_D_North_Jr The paper referenced below asserts that the ICC's goal was to protect the weaker railroads from ruin - who protested the PRR's usage of containers in that instance - and "save" the health of the entire railroad industry, regardless of the loss of efficiency by one carrier. See just the summary/ abstract on the top half of the 1st page to see that for yourself. - PDN. Paul_D_North_Jr: greyhounds, thanks for those histories above - both Merchant Shippers' and yours - and those insights. I expect that you're aware of the paper I'll cite and link to below, but others may not be, and may be interested in seeing it - it's only 16 pages (approx. 95 KB in size), and not too tough of a read. A big thanks to Mike/ wanswheel for finding and posting at the current end of the thread here at the bottom of page 2 of 2 on "Question about Gondola Load" at: http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/t/156787.aspx?PageIndex=2 "Saving the Railroad Industry to Death: The Interstate Commerce Commission, the Pennsylvania Railroad, and the Unfulfilled Promise of Rail-Truck Cooperation" by Albert Churella, Assoc. Prof. in Social and International Studies at Southern Polytechnic State University, as published by the Business History Conference in "Business and Economic History On-Line", Vol. 4, 2006, at: http://www.h-net.org/~business/bhcweb/publications/BEHonline/2006/churella.pdf and/ or, http://www.thebhc.org/publications/BEHonline/2006/churella.pdf - Paul North.
Paul_D_North_Jr: greyhounds, thanks for those histories above - both Merchant Shippers' and yours - and those insights. I expect that you're aware of the paper I'll cite and link to below, but others may not be, and may be interested in seeing it - it's only 16 pages (approx. 95 KB in size), and not too tough of a read. A big thanks to Mike/ wanswheel for finding and posting at the current end of the thread here at the bottom of page 2 of 2 on "Question about Gondola Load" at: http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/t/156787.aspx?PageIndex=2 "Saving the Railroad Industry to Death: The Interstate Commerce Commission, the Pennsylvania Railroad, and the Unfulfilled Promise of Rail-Truck Cooperation" by Albert Churella, Assoc. Prof. in Social and International Studies at Southern Polytechnic State University, as published by the Business History Conference in "Business and Economic History On-Line", Vol. 4, 2006, at: http://www.h-net.org/~business/bhcweb/publications/BEHonline/2006/churella.pdf and/ or, http://www.thebhc.org/publications/BEHonline/2006/churella.pdf - Paul North.
Yes, I've seen that before and I strongly disagree with Churella.
One of his main points is that the weaker railroads, such as the Erie, could not adopt a container system because they lacked the financial resources to do so. The regulators at least percieved that they had a mandate to keep railroads such as Erie financially viable. (Good luck with that.) So those regulators had no choice but to ignore the sea change brought on in transportation by motor freight operated over improved roads. The regulators just had to destroy the Pennsylvania Railroad's container system in order to protect the Erie. Well, the Erie never was financially successful and the Pennsy went under costing the taxpayers a bundle. In short, the government economic regulators were attempting to do something that could not be done and brought on a disaster in the process.
First, the up front investment required to operate a container system was minimal. You could lease the containers, as the Lehigh Valley did, and avoid any capital outlay. The cranes needed only a 5 ton capacity are were largely already in place at freight terminals to handle things such as lumber and steel shipments. The containers could be moved in existing gondolas. There was no need for the railroad to buy trucks. They could simply contract the trucking service on a per load basis.
For this, the railroad achieved a 75%-85% reduction in costs!
Just what was preventing the Erie from offering container service? Churella doesn't say. But he hangs his hat on it.
I still haven't seen a good explination for the effective banning of container service by the ICC. I've seen some excuses, but never a good explination. I believe they just kicked the can down the road. They had this revolutionary change in transportation going on, they had no idea how to handle it, and at the time they had no authority over motor carriers. So they just ordered the railroads to stop.
The railroads had to watch the truckers take the high revenue shipments. The government regulators wouldn't let them do much else.
Speaking of the Erie, their New York freight house was just a couple blocks from the New York Central. Here are links to pictures about construction of the High Line. In each photo there is an incidental glimpse of my favorite container car crane,
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3074/3251450708_e01a87f781_b.jpg?rand=144355463
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3535/3250627159_c3c147a69d_b.jpg?rand=125673791
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3373/3251453372_13d03edb61_b.jpg?rand=692970177
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3258/3251453652_f937880f54_b.jpg?rand=92915794
GLAD THAT SOMEONE REMEMBERS THE FORWARDER WHO WERE VERY LARGE
BEFORE THE CROSS-COUNTRY TRUCKERS AND DEREGULATION
HENRY ALSO EX ACME FAST FRIGHT
FUSE-
Before this thread slips off into oblivion I'd like to publicly thank wanswheel for the photos and articles he added to the discussion. They well illustrated and documented how intermodal service was developing in the 1920's. That's about as soon as the motor truck became able to handle a decent amount of freight.
Look at that photo above the article "For Less-Than-Carload Freight" A container being lifted between road and rail in the early 1920's. Oh well, it's another case of what might have been. Heck fire, they were even using a spreader bar and four corner posts on the container.
A train and a truck are but tools to do the same job. Which tool should be used depends on the situation. Combining the tools for use on the same job of moving a lot of goods from point A to point B is often more efficient than using just one of the tools for the whole job.
The railroads (at least some of them) understood that in the 1920's. Unfortunately the government czars didn't.
Stop trying to rationalize our country's transportation system, greyhounds, it is unAmerican to do so.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110223/NEWS13/302230007/Old-time-photo-of-the-day-Rock-Island-freight-backup
Definitely more labor intensive.
greyhounds I still haven't seen a good explination for the effective banning of container service by the ICC. I've seen some excuses, but never a good explination. I believe they just kicked the can down the road. They had this revolutionary change in transportation going on, they had no idea how to handle it, and at the time they had no authority over motor carriers. So they just ordered the railroads to stop.
One downside of container service was that it favored shipments that could fill a container, whereas LCL shipments could be as small as a child's bicycle. That would mean that towns and cities with enough traffic to fill containers would be getting cheaper rates than smaller towns and thus could be considered as discriminating against small towns. This is similar to how the Southern Railway had to fight the ICC over rates for the "Big John" hopper car. Also remember that this was just a few years before the SCOTUS ruling on Wickard v Filburn with respect to the Interstate Commerce clause.
Please bear in mind that the previous paragraph is why I think the ICC ruled the way they did, but not emphatically not because I'm in agreement with the ICC ruling. I'm in complete agreement with you in that the US would have been much better off had container rates been allowed to reflect the lower cost of service.
- Erik
Just a few comments about Less than carload/truckload shipments.
In the truck business there are a whole bunch of LTL carriers in addition there are whole bunch of consolidators. The later gets shipments headed more or less in the same general direction and consolidates. Some of these will have deliveries to receivers and some to depots or warehouses for delivery by a third party.
In my end of the business(I drive a refridgerated truck) there are 4 or 5 LTL truck load carriers who do both LTL & consolidation. In addition there a mulittude of consolidators. To steal a quote from Star Trek Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. (or something like that)
Also a little history, Purolater Air was bought by Emery in the late 1980's , Emery in turn was bought by Consolidated Freightways(currently CF) to be merged with there CFAir division. Emery/CF Air is still in the Air Freight Forwarding business I believe.
Also in the same time period Federal Express bought Flying Tigers (late 1980's) primarily to get better access to the Far East. That purchase got Federal Express past Japan in the Far East. They got a lot more as well. Federal Express was the 1st company in the overnite business nationwide. And Fred Smith only got a B- for the college paper describing the concept.
If I remember correctly, Federal Express started out with the authority of REA's messenger/ courier authority. purchased out of bankrupcy court. FedEx started out with Falcon 20's for aircraft the reason was that it had the right cargo capacity(4000lbs more or less) (in addition to financial support). There was a little loophole in the CAB / ICC regulations about courier companies could operate both ground vehicles and aircraft with the proviso that the cargo capacity could not exceed 4000 lbs (I think) . Fred Smith found the loophole and flew an airplane thru it.
Thx IGN
I think if PRR and NYC had had more business acumin, they would have set up a freight forwarding comopany, selling stock to make it independent, which would have owned the containers and possibly the specialized flatcars, established a wilingness to work with all railroads, and overcome the ICC objections. So it was not only the ICC's fault, but also cold feet of the railroads involved.
wanswheel Speaking of the Erie, their New York freight house was just a couple blocks from the New York Central. Here are links to pictures about construction of the High Line. In each photo there is an incidental glimpse of my favorite container car crane, http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3074/3251450708_e01a87f781_b.jpg?rand=144355463 http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3535/3250627159_c3c147a69d_b.jpg?rand=125673791 http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3373/3251453372_13d03edb61_b.jpg?rand=692970177 http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3258/3251453652_f937880f54_b.jpg?rand=92915794
greyhounds Before this thread slips off into oblivion I'd like to publicly thank wanswheel for the photos and articles he added to the discussion. They well illustrated and documented how intermodal service was developing in the 1920's. [snip]
+1
greyhounds A train and a truck are but tools to do the same job. Which tool should be used depends on the situation. Combining the tools for use on the same job of moving a lot of goods from point A to point B is often more efficient than using just one of the tools for the whole job.
Well said. Too bad that's too complicated - or different, or threatening, etc. - for some people and institutions to comprehend and implement.
Thank you Greyhounds. Thank you Paul.
The award for Best Picture of a container car goes to...
http://www.canadasouthern.com/caso/images/nyc-5996.jpg
The earliest patent application date: June 9, 1920
http://www.google.com/patents?pg=PA1&zoom=4&id=Nb1TAAAAEBAJ#v=onepage&q&f=true
Alfred H. Smith, President of the New York Central Lines and one of the best known railroad men in the United States, was killed late yesterday afternoon when he was thrown from his horse in Central Park. Mr. Smith met his death in pulling up suddenly to avoid running into a woman, mounted on a horse, who had ridden across his path. (NY Times, March 9, 1924)
1924: Santa Fe steam train "Mrs. A. H. Smith's Special" ran from Los Angeles to New York City, March 9-11, (via New York Central and Boston & Albany) 3,197 miles in 69 hours 7 minutes, average speed 46.3 miles per hour. (Chicago Daily News Almanac)
Alfred H. Smith Memorial Bridge
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=194030
Mike
What appears to be forgotten in this discussion is the sfifling effect the ICC had on transportation competition and operation. Railroads were not allowed to own trucking or bus companies and vice versa. A manufacturer could not just call the railroad and say he had a boxcar load of widgets or considered he would have a boxcar load everyday and wanted a price quote or even a handful which had to be shipped daily. The railroad would have to have a tariff rate on file. So if the widget wasn't on file in a tariff, the railroad would have to petition the ICC to set a rate; that petition was open for challenge and opposition by any other carrier be it rail, motor carraige, or air or water. This process took years in some cases. What started out as an agency to protect shippers from rate gouging by railroads became a bureau to prevent so called unfair competition by rate setting and not necessarily working for favor of the shipper. There were no long term contracts, no real competitive rate making or service provision: the tariff had to state the service and the price and was firm for both. So to say that any given railroad was short sighted in marketing is in error, that they didn't market or turned thier backs on marketing is wrong. Simply put the ICC process was too encombering to be too innovative and often the guy with the already established cheaper rate stood in your way, so why bother, just keep on railroading (trucking?) the way you always have, there's plenty of time for innovation in the future, Maybe.
Mike, you continue to amaze me . . . all great stuff . . . very interesting. Until this, I doubt if much of it had ever seen the light of day in the last 50 years or so - certainly I've not seen it or a reference to it before. Not only John Kneliling's book, many columns and several articles, but George Hilton's article in Trains on containerization*, David Deboer's book, Ernest Robl's reference website, "The Intermodal Container FAQ" at - http://www.robl.w1.com/Transport/intermod.htm - and his book, and some others I can't think of right now or don't yet know about - could have benefitted from access to this information.
Apropos this thread - note the name stencilled on the tops of that wonderful photo of the container cars: "THE L.C.L. COMPANY". Heavy-duty riveted side cars built like battleships - with truss rods, too - they weren't taking any chances.
Re: Mr. Smith's patent - note that it wasn't granted until Dec. 8, 1925 = 5-1/2 years after the application was filed, and 1-1/2 years after his death. Love that old drawing style, too (which I understand has largely been retained for patent applications).
Do we think that Mr. Smith really came up with this idea - or one of his staff engineers or marketing people - and took the credit for it ? I don't mean to impugn the man's integrity - I know very little about him - but was that the custom back then ? I believe that for patents, for a long time they could not be granted to companies, only individuals, so that may have been the way around that restriction - today, the individual inventor is named, as is the "assignment" to the company or institution, etc. Or was he sharp enough to have thought it up and worked it all out himself ?
( Wonder if that woman on the horse in Central Park was talking on a cell phone at the time ?)
Pity the widowed Mrs. Smith, who then had to rush back from LA to NYC for the funeral. That running time doesn't seem too astounding, though, considering that the last lap would have been on her late husband's railroad - anad how did the B&A become a part of it ? (Then again, whuy the big hurry - what was she going to do that necessitated great speed ? He was dead already, and she wasn't going to be able to bring him back to life.) How did the LA - Chicago timing - presumably over the Santa Fe - compare with Death Valley Scotty's Special and Nellie Bly's "Around the World in 80 Days" trip, and when were those in comparison ?
Nice photo of the bridge, too. I have an elderly aunt and a cousin and family who live just about 10 and 5 miles east of it respectively, and I'll be going up to see them sometime this spring - and I usually drive right along the bridge on the Massachusetts Turnpike extension of the New York State Thruway, I-90 - it's bridge is in the background of that photo.
Thanks again, Mike.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.