Re: Livestock through Chicago

Bruce Smith

What Tony also fails to note is that in spite of the supposed shipper preference for the Erie, the PRR hauled vastly more perishable traffic in terms of carloads than the Erie (about 3 times more).

Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL

From: STMFC@... [STMFC@...]
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 4:30 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Livestock through Chicago

True, but I've always wondered if the PRR didn't just get stuck with the bill
because so much of the perishables TERMINATED on the PRR after relatively short
hauls. After all if the produce deep inside the car rotted on the Santa Fe, how
would anyone know until the car was being unloaded in Pittsburgh or Philadelphia?

Were damage claims to perishables pro-rated based on "hours of control" ? If it
took Santa Fe 110 hours to get to Chicago, and PRR took 50 hours to forward that
to New York, it is fair to blame PRR for all of the damage?

    I take your point, Tim, but Erie from Chicago to New York had far smaller claims; B&O to its eastern cities had distinctly lower claims than PRR. If it was just a question of "who delivered it," they should have had just as much complaint as the PRR. My own guess would be that claims were pro-rated by mileage handled. Does anyone know for sure?

Tony Thompson             Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, tony@...
Publishers of books on railroad history

Join to automatically receive all group messages.