Re: Perishable Schedules

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>

Al Brown wrote:
The thread was originally about routings chosen by western shippers of perishables, and it's said they preferred Erie or Nickel Plate to PRR or NYC or B&O. It was countered that PRR handled a lot of perishables. I'm wondering whether PRR's perishable volume means that the preference just mentioned wasn't really all that strong, or does it mean that a lot of perishables came through gateways where there wasn't much choice?
I understand your confusion, Al, but I think you are mixing up two different things. The fact was that PRR and NYC and B&O served an awful lot of the U.S. population in, say, the 1950s. Note that Bruce Smith mentioned carloads, and of course many, many carloads HAD to travel the "undesirable" roads at the end of the trip. That doesn't mean they traveled those roads any farther than absolutely necessary. It would be interesting to compare carload-miles to total carloads. And of course shippers didn't have to listen to their local PFE agent unless they wanted to; if they didn't mind damage claims (after all, the railroad paid), they could ship as much on the PRR as they liked.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history

Join to automatically receive all group messages.