Re: Livestock through Chicago



No new math for me (too old), but perhaps cherry picking of data on your part.

When I said that the tonnages per car were interesting, I had assumed that "Fresh Meat" was being moved in meat reefers. Since Fresh meat car loads outnumbered the category you selected by five to one, and the fresh meat loads averaged within just a few percent of the cattle and double deck hog livestock car tonnages (fresh meat loads were actually 1% lower than double deck hog loads), I think "not that different" could be appropriate. Even if you combine the two meat load categories, which averaged 13.6 tons per car load combined - that is only 25% more than the average for all stock car loads (just under 11 tons per car of livestock), which includes, goats, sheep and single deck Hog loads, which one would expect to be significantly lighter than the bulk of the livestock movements. The combined 13.6 tons per reefer is only 15% higher than double deck hog car loads.

Considering that products of agriculture averaged 28.4 tons per car load, most grains averaged around 40 tons per car load (these are all for 1941), products of forests averaged 31.7 tons per carload, and manufacturing car loads averaged 27.9 tons per car load, a remark that livestock and meat reefer tons/car were "not that different," appears viable, but YMMV.

Cherry picking data may get you to 65.3%, but that is a factor of 2.6 to 4 higher than can be rightfully claimed.

No new math required.
Dave EvansĀ 

---In STMFC@..., <timboconnor@...> wrote :

> Cattle and calves, single deck - 11.3, 305,555
> Packing house products, edible, N.O.S. not including canned meats - 18.7, 48,320
> Looks like tons per stock car and tons per reefer may not have been that different.
> Dave Evans

Interesting. When I was in school 18.7 compared to 11.3 showed that 18.7 was 65.3%
larger. But then I never understood the new math.

Tim O'Connor

Join { to automatically receive all group messages.