Re: Interpreting Copeland interchange data
Greg Martin
All,
As I exhibited in TKM the PRR handled the Lions share of the hauls for all perishable produce traffic from the Mississippi east, nearly the sum of the NKP and Erie together, for most of the 50's (and Likely before) until the traffic dwindled to truck and TOFC business. As was mentioned the shippers controlled the traffic not the Railroads, the consignee "points the cannon" as we way even today in rail shipping unless it is on-line traffic.
Greg Martin
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
As I exhibited in TKM the PRR handled the Lions share of the hauls for all perishable produce traffic from the Mississippi east, nearly the sum of the NKP and Erie together, for most of the 50's (and Likely before) until the traffic dwindled to truck and TOFC business. As was mentioned the shippers controlled the traffic not the Railroads, the consignee "points the cannon" as we way even today in rail shipping unless it is on-line traffic.
Greg Martin
-----Original Message-----
From: Gregg Mahlkov <mahlkov@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:07:39 -0500
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Interpreting Copeland interchange data
Anthony Thompson wrote:
Presumably a particular produce market served by PRR could always be
accessed by interchange at the terminal city.
-----------------------------------------
As a person who was responsible for the Pennsylvania Produce Terminal's
traffic at Baltimore, MD, for a couple of years, albeit a half decade after
the scope of this list, I can advise that such an option would have been
extremely expensive. The consignee would have been required to pay the Class
Rate on the commodity for a local line-haul movement.
There was little or no reciprocal switching in most cities in the Northeast
and in those where it existed, produce terminals, being railroad owned, were
not open to switching. PRR had the lion's share of perishable traffic at
Baltimore and Philadelphia, as it not only had the produce terminals, but
most of the grocery chain warehouses as well. Remember, the produce terminal
merchants sold to restaurants and "mom and pop" groceries, the big chains
bought direct from the growers.
And Logansport, IN, was primarily a perishable gateway - most of the traffic
PRR received from the Wabash there was perishables. Remember, PRR owned the
Wabash at the time.
Gregg Mahlkov
Florida's Forgotten Coast
Yahoo! Groups Links
From: Gregg Mahlkov <mahlkov@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:07:39 -0500
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Interpreting Copeland interchange data
Anthony Thompson wrote:
Presumably a particular produce market served by PRR could always be
accessed by interchange at the terminal city.
-----------------------------------------
As a person who was responsible for the Pennsylvania Produce Terminal's
traffic at Baltimore, MD, for a couple of years, albeit a half decade after
the scope of this list, I can advise that such an option would have been
extremely expensive. The consignee would have been required to pay the Class
Rate on the commodity for a local line-haul movement.
There was little or no reciprocal switching in most cities in the Northeast
and in those where it existed, produce terminals, being railroad owned, were
not open to switching. PRR had the lion's share of perishable traffic at
Baltimore and Philadelphia, as it not only had the produce terminals, but
most of the grocery chain warehouses as well. Remember, the produce terminal
merchants sold to restaurants and "mom and pop" groceries, the big chains
bought direct from the growers.
And Logansport, IN, was primarily a perishable gateway - most of the traffic
PRR received from the Wabash there was perishables. Remember, PRR owned the
Wabash at the time.
Gregg Mahlkov
Florida's Forgotten Coast
Yahoo! Groups Links