Re: Cranberries


John Hile <john66h@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., Anthony Thompson <thompson@...> wrote:

This is an interesting speculation and it would be nice to find
evidence. I personally doubt if it happened this way.
FWIW, I checked a 1950 Freight Traffic Red Book and copy of the
Perishable Protective Tariff No. 13, effective June 15, 1944. Nothing
obvious regarding cranberries, i.e. requests for rate adjustments,
handling rules, etc., from point A to point B.

I did, however, upload a pdf scan to the STMFC file area of Rule 36
from Tariff 13 (file name: P P Tariff 13 Rule 36) which gives the
general rules for furnishing refrigerator cars. Part 2 of the rule
deals specifically with SFRD and PFE served railroads and their
ability to refuse to furnish for loading, or accept in interchange,
private cars which are to be used at or are bound for a specifically
defined western territory (see Part 2 Section C) with other than
perishable cargo. Meat reefers are OK, as are private cars with
perishable freight requiring protection.

This seems to imply that when these rules were followed (assuming no
special agreements are made between car owners or other AAR
arrangements) if you saw a private reefer other than a PFE or SFRD car
on the west coast, it would have come there hauling a perishible
cargo. It also seems to imply that the car would not be loaded for an
intra-area load, or for a perishable load heading east which would be
loaded within the protected area.

I would appreciate others reading this rule and letting me know if my
interpretation is correct.

John Hile

Join main@RealSTMFC.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.