Date
1 - 6 of 6
Speaking of private car rosters
|
Dave & Libby Nelson <muskoka@...>
As it appears it was a smart move to form all of the reefer and tank car
companies, why didn't other car types and commodities get addressed this way too? Fer instance, 50' boxcars with auto racks (or in later years, the autorack cars). Or plain jane coal hoppers running between Gary Indiana and the Pocohontas coal belts? Or any covered hopper? Or depressed flatcar? Superficially at least, it appears these situations are not far off of reefers from California -- loaded one way and returned empty. So why wasn't it done? ----------------------------------- Dave Nelson |
|
|
|
thompson@...
Dave Nelson asks:
As it appears it was a smart move to form all of the reefer and tank carDave, I think the specialized nature of tank car and reefer traffic had inhibited railroads from wanting to own very big fleets, so private owners tended to do the job, and got the attractive boost of the mileage payments instead of per diem. But this didn't and doesn't apply to "plain jane coal hoppers" or most any other car type. Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA 2942 Linden Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 http://www.signaturepress.com (510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@... Publishers of books on railroads and on Western history |
|
|
|
Dave & Libby Nelson <muskoka@...>
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-----Original Message----- Dave Nelson asks:But wouldn't that fat mileage payment create an opportunity for theAs it appears it was a smart move to form all of the reefer and tank caraddressed this way regulated carrier to: a) avoid a capital investment on its books and the attendant approval process and b) provide the shareholders equal to or greater return (the greater return comes from non owning roads paying that mileage fee)? Or were the milage fees and per diem payments roughly equivalent? Dave Nelson |
|
|
|
Garth G. Groff <ggg9y@...>
Dave,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I suspect we have economics and accidents of history to explain why tank cars and reefers (and to a lesser extent stock cars) were privately owned, but other car types were not. Most of these cars were (a) specialized, especially when fitted up for a particular industry or commodity, and (b) fairly low use compared to general freight cars. IIRC, most railroads were reluctant to invest in such specialized cars due to the lower dollar return. So much for the economics. As for history, Armour tried to corner the market on refrigerators at the turn of the century, and Standard Oil attempted the same with tank cars. These companies put considerable pressure on the railroads not to compete, or lose through routing of the monopoly-owned special cars. This kept railroads out of the game, and allowed other private players (or railroad-owned consortiums) to move into this niche when Armour and Standard Oil lost their monopolies. As for other car types, consider that Trailer Train, Railbox, and Railgon more or less did/do offer "private" fleets of cars for hire today. Of course, these ventures are owned by participating railroads, but the companies are managed independently. Kind regards, Garth G. Groff Dave & Libby Nelson wrote:
|
|
|
|
thompson@...
But wouldn't that fat mileage payment create an opportunity for theWell, remember, Dave, all the OTHER carriers would have to agree, or convince the ICC to permit it. I don't know that it was a FAT payment, but if so, the ICC would certainly have had an input. But I don't think this is something you can reason through. It is probably largely history, as Garth Groff observed, and I would concur. Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA 2942 Linden Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 http://www.signaturepress.com (510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@... Publishers of books on railroads and on Western history |
|
|
|
Dave & Libby Nelson <muskoka@...>
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-----Original Message----- Well, remember, Dave, all the OTHER carriers would have to agree, orWas that the case with the PFE? GATX? I don't know that it was a FAT payment, butDid the ICC have any regulatory authority over private car lines? Perhaps the dollar value of the mileage charge, but I thought nothing else (wasn't it the FRA who regulated safety features of any cars, public or private?). But I don't think this is something you can reason through. It isWell, yeah, it is safe to say R.R. mgmt was, ahem, less than visionary. I'm trying to understand if the reasoning in this particular issue was financial, legal, or intellectual, especially by the 50's as more and more specialized cars came into service and car pools can into use. Sounds like both you and Garth lean towards the later - correct? Dave Nelson |
|
|