Re: Perishable Schedules


Greg Martin
 

Al Brown writes:

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? To tell, ideally one would want a gateway-by-gateway breakdown of the roads receiving perishable traffic.






The charts that appeared in TKM corresponding to perishable fruit and vegetables clear showed that the PRR handled more carloads of perishables than any other eastern carrier... the keyword is ~carloads handled ~ That accounted for loads generated online, at interchange, as a bridge and as a delivering carrier and as consolidated and then for furtherance and was the case for all the railroads in the study. Randy Williamson did some traffic studies along these lines in terms of revenue generated (based on rates per hundred weight) and share the study with Bruce, Elden and myself and was encouraged to publish his findings as it did break the totals down as I have described them in ICC terms. To date I have not seen the study published. Randy also has a vast collection of PRR perishable routings as well.

Checking the archives for this might be helpful as the late Tim Gilbert had added much to the original discussion regarding tonage totals as well, there in my lie the PRR interhange information for the north~south traffic as we had several emails privately regarding the PRR perishable business.

Greg Martin

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