Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
Greg Martin wrote:
First of all if we look for paper to verify the use of foreign line cars in reloading or loading application we are not likely to find it.Fine. That's why I interviewed people rather than counting on finding paper. But remember, Greg, absence of paper likewise does not prove there WAS an agreement.
Tony, your right the SP would not likely?request or reload?an ATSF car?for an online move, but I wonder how PFE management would view several carloadings that destine for someplace like Albuquerque, NM and furthermore, why would the Santa Fe want to pay mileage to PFE for a move?from Albuquerque with an empty?dead head back? Why?would?PFE want to loose a car offline for perhaps two weeks or more in the middle of a harvest?Sorry, you're not making sense. The railroads HAD to pay mileage to the refrigerator car operators whether the "wanted to" or not. And we've already agreed that cranberries are NOT harvested in the peak seasons for the growing territories of ATSF and PFE.
No, SP did not "reload ATSF cars," as it was PFE's responsibility to supply cars on-line to both UP and SP perishable shippers. And ample testimony from those who did the work is that PFE and SFRD simply did not use each other's cars. Period. You can rationalize from your car distribution experience all you want, but those are the facts from that era.
Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, firstname.lastname@example.org
Publishers of books on railroad history