Could be UPS in 1907 but the oldest is a flatbed steel hauler out of Cleveland Kaplan Trucking http://www.kaplantrucking.com/map.html which got its ICC number in 1934. Saint Johnsbury Trucking Company was 72 years old in 1993 before it went under. Red Ball Moving has been around since 1919-- Here is a rich history of them-http://www.redball.com/long-distance-moving-company/our-rich-history/ Main Problem was that untill the 1940s most US Routes were not even paved yet outside of metropoliton areas.
Jones Motor Co.. they've been going since 1894. You can read about their history at www.jonesmotor.com
Does anyone remember the truck line that was running before WWII named "Horton".....It appeared to be first class equipment. Believe orange and black were the colors...and some stainless steel trailers started to work into the fleet...{At least it appeared as stainless does now}....My point of viewing them on a regular basis was in Pennsylvania in Somerset Co. running east /west on Highway route 30. That was before the Pennsy Turnpike was put thru.....So 30 was the main route thru that area. Also at the same time, another one comes to mind....Koontz Motor Freight. Equipment not as first class and most tractors, were smaller units...Fords....Might even have been GMC or Chevy....Believe they were a dull red on paint scheme....
Quentin
We're all glad to see you back, Modelcar.
First off, to remember anything from before the Penna. Turnpike was opened is certainly rare these days! I can't say I recall Horton or Koontz trucks specifically, but I do remember the days when truckers were often the knights of the highway, and in Pennsylvania they had some challenging roads to drive. How I hated following a truck up a mountain that state!
Second, in the summer of 1966 I worked as a mechanic for the Cleveland & Buffalo Transit Company. This was a truck company whose roots lay in operating steam ships on Lake Erie between the two eponymous cities. The company couldn't operate ships in the winter ice, so it began a trucking company to keep its freight customers. By 1966 the ships were long gone; the C&B truck company component was sold to Morrison Motor Freight about 1968 or so. I got to know a number of truckers and their culture, for which I'm grateful. For example, they had a great cafe on St. Clair Ave. called the Fifth Wheel; typical truck-stop food and delicious hot coffee.
Remember Spector-Mid States trucking? Pacific Intermountain Express? I used to like seeing the logo of the Preston Trucking Company ("the 151 Line"), and another company whose logo was a camel ("Humpin' to Please"). Today I see trucks from A. Duie Pyle and Englander truck companies.
Those truck tractors I greased and oiled that summer were Whites and Diamond REO's. Do you know they took 40 quarts of oil?
Thank You NKP Guy
Yes 40 qts probably worked pretty hard in those sizeable diesels.
Guess I didn't think too much what I was asking....Kinda funny...I go back a ways. Born in '31 so I do have memory of before the Turnpike. Lots of memory in watching some of the construction. First rode on it about a week after it opened which was Oct. 1940...We rode from Somerset to Donegal. That way we got to go thru a tunnel. Laural Hill Tunnel....One of the longer of the 7 original ones when the first section was built. You know I slipped in here to do a quick email and figured I'd check out the Trains. forum...and now look at the time....I'll try to visit more often....Nice to converse with you.
NKP guyToday I see trucks from A. Duie Pyle and Englander truck companies.
Used to be a Canadian trucking company named "Husband." The name took up the whole side of the trailer. We'd see them on our trips to NY from MI on the "401." Always kept a lookout for one that said "Wife."
I chuckle every time I see A. Duie Pyle go by. Makes me think of a cow pasture in the early morning...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68I chuckle every time I see A. Duie Pyle go by. Makes me think of a cow pasture in the early morning...
Me, too!
Mike-Terebecki is a Trucking Historian... There was a trailer museum
just found this=
https://www.hemmings.com/blog/2015/07/06/national-auto-and-truck-museum-obtains-only-known-parade-of-progress-trailer/#&gid=1&pid=2
https://www.abebooks.com/book-search/title/vanishing-trucking-pioneers/author/mike-terebecki/
https://www.amazon.com/Vanishing-Trucking-Pioneers-Mike-Terebecki/dp/9991368159
Mike-Terebecki
Yeah, you'd think they'd change their name. They could probably add $10 million to their sales by simply coming up with a name that doesn't conjure up a fresh cow paddy.
Ulrich Yeah, you'd think they'd change their name. They could problem add $10 million to their sales by simply coming up with a name that doesn't conjure up a fresh cow paddy.
Yeah, you'd think they'd change their name. They could problem add $10 million to their sales by simply coming up with a name that doesn't conjure up a fresh cow paddy.
Must be Mr. Pyle didn't like his first name, which isn't all that bad - Alexander...
Now, if his first name had been Gomer....
Johnny
A good point & pun, johnny!
But is anyone else here old enough to remember when the name of Ernie Pyle was held in the highest regard by our fathers' generation, especially by the dogfaces?
Maybe the truck company knows that some of us never forget (such) a name.
Statement by President Truman, April 18, 1945
The nation is quickly saddened again by the death of Ernie Pyle. No man in this war has so well told the story of the American fighting man as American fighting men wanted it told. More than any other man he became the spokesman of the ordinary American in arms doing so many extraordinary things. It was his genius that the mass and power of our military and naval forces never obscured the men who made them. He wrote about a people in arms as people still, but a people moving in a determination which did not need pretensions as a part of power. Nobody knows how many individuals in our forces and at home he helped with his writings. But all Americans understand now how wisely, how warmheartedly, how honestly he served his country and his profession. He deserves the gratitude of all his countrymen.
CandOforprogress2 Could be UPS in 1907 but the oldest is a flatbed steel hauler out of Cleveland Kaplan Trucking http://www.kaplantrucking.com/map.html which got its ICC number in 1934. Saint Johnsbury Trucking Company was 72 years old in 1993 before it went under.
Could be UPS in 1907 but the oldest is a flatbed steel hauler out of Cleveland Kaplan Trucking http://www.kaplantrucking.com/map.html which got its ICC number in 1934. Saint Johnsbury Trucking Company was 72 years old in 1993 before it went under.
I was a manager for St. Johnsbury for 12 years - was there to the end. The sad part is that we made a profit right to the end - but a 13% junk-bond sell off by Sun Company (who owned us until about 1990) made the situation hopeless - especially when we had had to service the debt from three other regional carriers that they closed.
CandOforprogress2 Mike-Terebecki is a Trucking Historian... There was a trailer museum just found this= https://www.hemmings.com/blog/2015/07/06/national-auto-and-truck-museum-obtains-only-known-parade-of-progress-trailer/#&gid=1&pid=2 https://www.abebooks.com/book-search/title/vanishing-trucking-pioneers/author/mike-terebecki/ https://www.amazon.com/Vanishing-Trucking-Pioneers-Mike-Terebecki/dp/9991368159 Mike-Terebecki
His work consists of The Vanishing Trucking Pioneers and The Trucking Pioneers Vol II through vol IX. The companies in each vol are discussed in alapabetical order. Each discussion has a short history (couple of pages) and a few full page black and white photos of their rigs. In many cases there is also a map showing the company's service area. Vol III-X each have a Classic Photos Section of about 16 pages of color photos. There are about 30-50 companies per book. Unfortunately there is no overall index for the series and there are also many companies that are not included.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
CAROLINA had a good run, from 1932 until 1995 when they sold out to ABF.
CAROLINA dominated east of the Mississippi from the late 60's through the 80's.
Sheldon
Truck Lines had to get ICC authority to run a certain route and if I recall had to prove to the ICC that the route was not served adequately by rail.
The current Navajo freight lines is based on the former Digby Golden Arrow and Ringsby lines.
CandOforprogress2 Truck Lines had to get ICC authority to run a certain route and if I recall had to prove to the ICC that the route was not served adequately by rail.
It was a little more complex than that, but yes, territories were regulated to prevent too much or too little competition. Motor carriers generally had to buy existing carriers to get into new areas, or buy part of a territory from an existing carrier not interested in the business in that area.
And of course rates were controlled as well. Your only way to compete was service.
Rember Ernie Pyle. Yes, I remember him from the news papers. And my Dad thought highly of him. My dad had worked for the MOPAC and in '43 was relacated from Milwaukee to Cincinnati. In '47, they told him he was being relocated again and he said NO. quit & went to work as a rate clerk for a truck line. Didn't want to take us out of school. He was an ICC practitioner so I had some understanding of tarriffs.
CandOforprogress2Truck Lines had to get ICC authority to run a certain route and if I recall had to prove to the ICC that the route was not served adequately by rail.
No!
How could a truck line possibly "prove" that a route was not adequately served by rail? What's "adequate" anyway? And if a "route" had say, 10 customers, five of them might be "adequately" served and the other five "inadequately" served. Customers' needs do vary. So then what?
And, to an Atlantic Central post, there is absolutely no possible way for the stupid government economic planners to determine the "right" amount of competition and prevent "too much" or "too little".
Carolina Freight Carriers, which was a well run company, started in 1932. In 1932 there was no Federal regulation of motor freight. None. The Feds got involved in 1935 and trucking companies got to maintain the services they then offered. There was, and is, absolutely no valid economic reason to economically regulate motor freight.
The truckers sought regulation. And they fought deregulation. That ought to make us suspicious. Anytime an industry actually seeks to be economically regulated something strange is going on. The truckers (and their union labor) wanted protection from competition. This protection was, naturally, contrary to the interests of the American economy and the American people, but it did protect the companies/union from competition. There's a name for this: It's called "Predatory Regulation." It's meant to protect the industry by harming consumers. Governments are far too often eager to do it because it gives them added power.
In the end most motor freight users found a way around the regulatory system. By 1980 70% of motor freight was moved in a way that avoided the economic regulations. One way to do this was for a shipper to buy their own trucks. Since these trucks were not in for hire service the regulations didn't apply. It was less efficient than it could have been. But it beat using the regulated system.
When the regulations were removed the US logistics system was allowed to configure into its most efficient form. Trucking companies, such as Carolina, which had been built to fit the regulations, died like flies as new, more efficient systems took their place.
Carolina lasted longer than most, but then it died too.
greyhoundsThere was, and is, absolutely no valid economic reason to economically regulate motor freight.
Fews things in life happen for absolutely no reason. For instance you might have past precedents of corrupt or abusive business practices that regulation was designed to limit (or in some really corrupt instances, promote). Not sayimng that i am a big fan of regulation, just that in some instances it serves a better purpose than "let the advantaged prey"
Convicted OneFews things in life happen for absolutely no reason
I found greyhounds' comment that no trucking regulations existed before the New Deal to be thought-provoking. Doubtless this was because of Coolidge-Hoover laissez-faire, but also because of the condition of most highways before 1933 and the relatively new invention of the long-haul truck.
But perhaps the main reason the New Deal began to regulate interstate trucking was that at the depths of the Depression (1932-1933) the idea of dividing up the exisiting work in an industry to give all players a share of the market was not yet discredited, at least by today's standards. After all, a big part of the National Recovery Act (later ruled unconstitutional in part by a very conservative Supreme Court as one of the decisions that encouraged FDR to "stuff" the Court in 1937) was based on the principle of dividing up the work to keep businesses, especially small businesses (like new truck companies) in business. As for the unions, of course they would favor such an arrangement because it was the other side of the same coin: to keep workers working.
Our views today of this 1930's idea and arrangement on the part of the federal government, the industry, and its unions often overlooks why the whole thing came about in the first place. It didn't just happen. It was a well-intentioned response to economic Depression and massive, government-threatening unemployment. FDR never claimed to have all the answers. His idea was to try something. If it worked, fine; if it didn't, then try something else. But above all, try something, and not just blindly keep following a fruitless theory.
The long-ago America of regulated industries and strong labor unions made it possible for me and millions of others to better ourselves in ways that made our parents proud and our nation strong.
We sure are a lot better off today, aren't we?
Convicted Onegreyhounds: "There was, and is, absolutely no valid economic reason to economically regulate motor freight." Fews things in life happen for absolutely no reason. For instance you might have past precedents of corrupt or abusive business practices that regulation was designed to limit (or in some really corrupt instances, promote). Not sayimng that i am a big fan of regulation, just that in some instances it serves a better purpose than "let the advantaged prey"
Please read and understand what I wrote. I agree that there is some cause/reason for just about everything. And, in many cases it may be a very bad reason.
I did not say there was no reason. I said: "There was, and is, absolutely no valid economic reason to economically regulate motor freight." And there isn't.
Two main "reasons" motor freight regulation came about were:
1) FDR was illiterate with regards to economics and commerce. His administration prolonged and aggravated the economic downturn. They thought price regulation of everything and restricted competition would produce economic growth. They were wrong.
Hell Fire, they even tried to regulate the price of chickens. For some reason some people want to buy live chickens to take home for slaughter, plucking, preparation, and cooking. Yuk! I grew up in a very small town and we'd raise our own chickens from time to time. In such cases it fell to me as a young boy to catch the chickens one by one and hold them as their heads were severed. Then the headless chicken would run around "like a chicken with its head cut off" literally spewing chicken blood all over. When the finally lifeless chicken bodies were taken in to the house they were plucked/cleaned using boiling hot water. My God, the smell was awful. I'd go outside in the winter cold to escape it; the cold was better than the smell.
I don't understand why some people want to do this instead of just buying a ready to cook chicken. But some people do.
So the FDR administration took it upon itself to set a fixed price for live chickens in New York City. This wasn't just dumb, it was "Government Dumb". The price of a chicken was Federally fixed at $0.25 each. No one could make a deal. You couldn't buy five chickens for $1.15. You couldn't negotiate. Anything but $0.25/chicken put both the buyer and seller in violation of Federal law. And, to top it off, the buyer had to blindly select the chicken he/she bought. The buyer had to blindly reach in to the chicken coop and pull out a bird. (This price fixing was challenged up to the US Supreme Court. It was struck down. Which caused FDR to threaten to pack the court.)
Any administration that was dumb enough to try to regulate the price of live chickens would be more than receptive to the regulation of trucking. Stupid is as stupid does.
2) The established trucking companies wanted protection from competitive start ups and other truckers who would do the job for a lower price. They got their protection from the FDR government, to the detriment of the American people.
Those are reasons. They're not good reasons. But they're reasons.
Again, I didn't say there was no reason. I said: "There was, and is, absolutely no valid economic reason to economically regulate motor freight."
Regarding my earlier post and the comments that have followed.
I never said regulation was a good idea, I was simply giving a short answer as to the "theory" of the issue of territories as raised by C&O.
Yes, in 1935 the motor carriers willingly accepted regulation. Lets face it, right or wrong, at that time there was a lot of "socialist" thinking by many that the current problems could be fixed and avoided by more government - even among some business men.
And, while they may have served some good purposes early on, carried to the extreems of the 40's and 50's, what is a union but an extension of socialist ideas. Pay everyone the same no matter if they work hard or not? Bully people into joining, bully companies into contracts that ultimately make products too expensive and price people out of jobs? I'm not suggesting workers don't need some sort of protections, but that scale tipped too far the other way long before it corrected.
But by the 1950's and very much so by the time my father worked at CAROLINA in the 60's and 70's they all knew regulation was bad. They might not have been fully prepared to adapt to deregulation, but they knew it needed to happen.
The depression, no question that FDR's polices prolonged the recovery. How is restricting business and spending money you don't have ever a good thing?
greyhounds Convicted One greyhounds: "There was, and is, absolutely no valid economic reason to economically regulate motor freight." Fews things in life happen for absolutely no reason. For instance you might have past precedents of corrupt or abusive business practices that regulation was designed to limit (or in some really corrupt instances, promote). Not sayimng that i am a big fan of regulation, just that in some instances it serves a better purpose than "let the advantaged prey" Please read and understand what I wrote. I agree that there is some cause/reason for just about everything. And, in many cases it may be a very bad reason. I did not say there was no reason. I said: "There was, and is, absolutely no valid economic reason to economically regulate motor freight." And there isn't. Two main "reasons" motor freight regulation came about were: 1) FDR was illiterate with regards to economics and commerce. His administration prolonged and aggravated the economic downturn. They thought price regulation of everything and restricted competition would produce economic growth. They were wrong. Hell Fire, they even tried to regulate the price of chickens. For some reason some people want to buy live chickens to take home for slaughter, plucking, preparation, and cooking. Yuk! I grew up in a very small town and we'd raise our own chickens from time to time. In such cases it fell to me as a young boy to catch the chickens one by one and hold them as their heads were severed. Then the headless chicken would run around "like a chicken with its head cut off" literally spewing chicken blood all over. When the finally lifeless chicken bodies were taken in to the house they were plucked/cleaned using boiling hot water. My God, the smell was awful. I'd go outside in the winter cold to escape it; the cold was better than the smell. I don't understand why some people want to do this instead of just buying a ready to cook chicken. But some people do. So the FDR administration took it upon itself to set a fixed price for live chickens in New York City. This wasn't just dumb, it was "Government Dumb". The price of a chicken was Federally fixed at $0.25 each. No one could make a deal. You couldn't buy five chickens for $1.15. You couldn't negotiate. Anything but $0.25/chicken put both the buyer and seller in violation of Federal law. And, to top it off, the buyer had to blindly select the chicken he/she bought. The buyer had to blindly reach in to the chicken coop and pull out a bird. (This price fixing was challenged up to the US Supreme Court. It was struck down. Which caused FDR to threaten to pack the court.) Any administration that was dumb enough to try to regulate the price of live chickens would be more than receptive to the regulation of trucking. Stupid is as stupid does. 2) The established trucking companies wanted protection from competitive start ups and other truckers who would do the job for a lower price. They got their protection from the FDR government, to the detriment of the American people. Those are reasons. They're not good reasons. But they're reasons. Again, I didn't say there was no reason. I said: "There was, and is, absolutely no valid economic reason to economically regulate motor freight."
Convicted One greyhounds: "There was, and is, absolutely no valid economic reason to economically regulate motor freight." Fews things in life happen for absolutely no reason. For instance you might have past precedents of corrupt or abusive business practices that regulation was designed to limit (or in some really corrupt instances, promote). Not sayimng that i am a big fan of regulation, just that in some instances it serves a better purpose than "let the advantaged prey"
We did benefit in two ways from FDR's programs: a new pit privy behind the house, and a one-year kindergarten in town.
I remember one truck line of the forties especially--Campbell. Each truck had a picture of a runnning camel on each side, with the slogan "Humping to please." I do not know what territory the company covered, but it did serve towns and cities in South Carolina.
NKP guyWe sure are a lot better off today, aren't we?
My thoughts were geared more towards the reality that not everyone is honest, not everyone wishes to play fair, and not everyone gives a d*** about serving the greater common good. Unfortunately all too often you have well-funded scoundrels more than happy to pillage the system for their own selfish purposes.
By creating a set of rules by which ALL parties are expected to operate, you then have a means to prosecute, to iradicate what's rotten in Denmark. Again I'm not trying to be a beacon of pro regulation, I'm just saying that i understand why it is sometimes better than no regulation.
Convicted One NKP guy We sure are a lot better off today, aren't we? My thoughts were geared more towards the reality that not everyone is honest, not everyone wishes to play fair, and not everyone gives a d*** about serving the greater common good. Unfortunately all too often you have well-funded scoundrels more than happy to pillage the system for their own selfish purposes. By creating a set of rules by which ALL parties are expected to operate, you then have a means to prosecute, to iradicate what's rotten in Denmark. Again I'm not trying to be a beacon of pro regulation, I'm just saying that i understand why it is sometimes better than no regulation.
NKP guy We sure are a lot better off today, aren't we?
How exactly does that work? In the free market:
Companies that charge too much go out of business.
Companies that charge too little go out of business.
Companies that provide poor service go out of business.
With complex regulation there is way more oppertunity to lie, cheat, steal, minipulate, buy priviledge, suppress competition, etc.
When the government has favors to sell, someone will be willing to pay for them......
"the government that governs least governs best"
ATLANTIC CENTRAL And, while they may have served some good purposes early on, carried to the extreems of the 40's and 50's, what is a union but an extension of socialist ideas. Pay everyone the same no matter if they work hard or not? Bully people into joining, bully companies into contracts that ultimately make products too expensive and price people out of jobs? I'm not suggesting workers don't need some sort of protections, but that scale tipped too far the other way long before it corrected.
And now the scale has tipped too far the other way, with the rise off "right-to-work" (for less) laws and other such nonsense. Today we are having to fight to keep those hard-won gains from years past.
Don't get me wrong, outdated contracts and union attitudes caused a lot of problems (notably in the railway industry through the 60s and 70s), but there is still a place for unions today, even with their problems. I work in a closed-shop setting for a company that is highly profitable (and would be even if they manned up and obeyed our contract to the letter instead of violating it at every turn).
Sidenote: in Canada closed shops are legal, in the U.S. they are not (Taft-Hartley Act, 1947). The issue has been to the Supreme Court in Canada, and it was decided that anyone working in a unionized environment benefits equally from the union representation, therefore they are required to pay dues regardless of whether they choose to be a member of the union or not (the union also has to represent them equally). This required financial contribution (certain conscientious objectors may pay their dues to a registered charity instead) has also been deemed to not be a violation of the freedom-of-association/freedom-to-not-associate principle in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.