Tim O'Connor wrote:

PRR may have had some difficulty keeping perishables on time (haven't seen any objective evidence of this, just hearsay and anecdotes) . . .

Two different retired PFE people told me, in separate interviews on different dates, that their avoidance of PRR for perishables arose from PRR's damage claims, which they asserted were the highest of any Class I, per TON-MILE. This may only mean that this assertion was "common legend" among PFE management, but after all, it was the business they were in and I would certainly doubt they made it up. Whether ICC or AAR collected these data, or have them archived, I don't know, but if you want "objective" data, feel free to go seek it.

Better to ask: If SP and AT&SF were so much better run, how come their average freight train speeds in those wide open spaces were only a few MPH faster than the plodding PRR?

Perishables are not average freight, Tim, and that may have been precisely what PRR's blind spot was: they couldn't or flat out didn't believe it.

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, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history