Date
1 - 17 of 17
Billboard Reefers
|
Russ Strodtz <sheridan@...>
Tim,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
It is interesting to note that much later some GTW cars started showing up with the logo of a processed foods company about a foot square stuck on them. I will acknowledge this could have been just a loading dock Foreman with a good supply of stickers but I doubt there was any effort made to cover them up or remove them. Russ Strodtz ----- Original Message -----
From: Tim O'Connor To: STMFC@... Sent: Sunday, 25 March, 2007 20:26 Subject: Re: [STMFC] Billboard Reefers Guy Wilber wrote >"Advertisements of any shipper, consignee or product, prohibited on all cars > except special cars of Mechanical Designation "L" and tank cars of Mechanical > Designation "T". In Interchange. > >Note. -- The name of the "home point" of the car owner or lessee, a trade >mark or symbol, or the name of the owner or lessee, or any part thereof, will >not be considered advertising." Thanks Guy, although excepting "trade marks" would seemingly cover a lot of what is usually considering to be advertising. Like Tony's example of the Chateau Martin cars (which were not T or L) bearing 40 foot slogans, e.g. "For Good-ness Sake ... drink Chateau Martin Wines" If that's just a declaration of ownership or a simple trade mark, then I guess I don't understand the meaning of the word "advertising". I wonder if you have any evidence of further relaxation of the 'ban' in the 1950's or afterwards? Tim O'Connor |
|
|
|
Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
Richard Hendrickson wrote:
Ah, but Tim, the Chateau Martin cars WERE T class cars, specificallyThe post-war ORER I have says they were all XT and BMT cars. CLass TG was for conventional tank cars which happened to have glass linings, not for box car bodies with internal tanks. 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 |
|
|
|
Richard Hendrickson
On Mar 25, 2007, at 6:26 PM, Tim O'Connor wrote:
....excepting "trade marks" would seemingly cover a lot ofAh, but Tim, the Chateau Martin cars WERE T class cars, specifically class TG, "tank car having one or more glass lined containers." Remember, these were former milk cars, i.e., express reefers with tanks for bulk milk shipments, which Chateau Martin purchased second hand for shipments of bulk wine. Richard Hendrickson |
|
|
|
Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
Guy Wilber's list of exception-classes for advertising (mechanical designations T and L) is interesting because it does NOT include the cars we've been discussing: the R classes. I think we need to know more about this . . . <g>.
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 |
|
|
|
Guy Wilber wrote
"Advertisements of any shipper, consignee or product, prohibited on all cars Thanks Guy, although excepting "trade marks" would seemingly cover a lot of what is usually considering to be advertising. Like Tony's example of the Chateau Martin cars (which were not T or L) bearing 40 foot slogans, e.g. "For Good-ness Sake ... drink Chateau Martin Wines" If that's just a declaration of ownership or a simple trade mark, then I guess I don't understand the meaning of the word "advertising". I wonder if you have any evidence of further relaxation of the 'ban' in the 1950's or afterwards? Tim O'Connor |
|
|
|
Westerfield <westerfield@...>
Tony - You're right - a slip of the keystroke. - Al Westerfield
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
----- Original Message -----
From: Anthony Thompson To: STMFC@... Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 3:07 PM Subject: Re: [STMFC] Billboard Reefers Al Westerfield wrote: > The worst problem in my opinion was that the per diem that the > railroads had pay to haul long distance shipments in the leased cars > was so great that the lessees' lease cost was more than covered by the > per diem. In essence they were leasing the cars for free. Only a > fool wouldn't take advantage of such a situation. As a result there > were twice as many reefers as needed in 1930 and the ones sitting idle > belonged to the railroads. This is also covered in the 1934 ICC > decision. Correct, Al, except they were NOT per diem payments, they were mileage payments. Some lease contracts provided for subtracting the mileage payments on a car (for that month) from the lease charge--permitting a literal profit just by moving cars more extensively. It appears from the ICC testimony that only a few shippers were aggressively taking advantage of this, but by removing the legality of such contracts, the ICC intended to avoid the rest of the shippers (in Al's words) deciding not to be fools. 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 |
|
|
|
Guy Wilber
In a message dated 3/25/2007 10:36:33 AM Central Daylight Time,
timboconnor@... writes: So there you have it. I suppose one should preface one's question with "What is the answer today?" since it seems likely to change tomorrow. Tim, The AAR eventually moved their language within Rule 3 to Section (a) Paragraph (7). I will have to dig a little deeper to find that exact date, but as of 1946 it read as follows. I think you will find the exceptions (within) interesting in reference to your mention of Boraxo covered hoppers, etc., in your post from Saturday. "Advertisements of any shipper, consignee or product, prohibited on all cars except special cars of Mechanical Designation "L" and tank cars of Mechanical Designation "T". In Interchange. Note. -- The name of the "home point" of the car owner or lessee, a trade mark or symbol, or the name of the owner or lessee, or any part thereof, will not be considered advertising." Kind Regards, Guy Wilber West Bend, WI ************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. |
|
|
|
Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
Al Westerfield wrote:
The worst problem in my opinion was that the per diem that the railroads had pay to haul long distance shipments in the leased cars was so great that the lessees' lease cost was more than covered by the per diem. In essence they were leasing the cars for free. Only a fool wouldn't take advantage of such a situation. As a result there were twice as many reefers as needed in 1930 and the ones sitting idle belonged to the railroads. This is also covered in the 1934 ICC decision.Correct, Al, except they were NOT per diem payments, they were mileage payments. Some lease contracts provided for subtracting the mileage payments on a car (for that month) from the lease charge--permitting a literal profit just by moving cars more extensively. It appears from the ICC testimony that only a few shippers were aggressively taking advantage of this, but by removing the legality of such contracts, the ICC intended to avoid the rest of the shippers (in Al's words) deciding not to be fools. 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 |
|
|
|
Westerfield <westerfield@...>
The worst problem in my opinion was that the per diem that the railroads had pay to haul long distance shipments in the leased cars was so great that the lessees' lease cost was more than covered by the per diem. In essence they were leasing the cars for free. Only a fool wouldn't take advantage of such a situation. As a result there were twice as many reefers as needed in 1930 and the ones sitting idle belonged to the railroads. This is also covered in the 1934 ICC decision. - Al Westerfield
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim O'Connor To: STMFC@... Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 1:23 PM Subject: Re: [STMFC] Billboard Reefers I agree with you, Tony. :-) I always understood the intention of the 'ban' was to curb such abuses, whereas advertisement of one's own products on one's own freight cars (covered hoppers, reefers, box cars) did not incur so much regulatory wrath. Which may have something to do with why it's not hard to find photos of freight cars carrying product advertising in the 1950's and especially from the 1960's onwards. If you think about it, once the railroads began to put passenger train advertising on their freight cars, you had railroads forced to carry freight cars that advertised competitors' services! Here the 'injured party' would be a railroad and not a shipper, so maybe the ICC didn't consider it to be unfair. Or maybe it was just such a longstanding practice that no one challenged it. Tim O'Connor >Kurt Laughlin wrote: >> Maybe it's the same thing stated another way, but my impression was >> that it was the small shippers who complained about using cars with >> their competitor's logos all over them, and argued to the ICC that the >> free advertising provided by the logos was tantamount to an illegal >> rebate for the large shippers. > > As I stated back in 2002, this aspect was a very small part of >the abuses which the ICC stepped in to correct. The free advertising >was indeed ruled a rebate, but this is summarized briefly in the >ruling, while there are pages and pages on the remainder of the docket >issues. (The biggest had to do with mileage-charge abuses by roundabout >or unnecessary car movements, and with lease contracts in which >shippers had an incentive to create extra mileage.) It is my impression >from reading some of the ICC testimony that the assignment of one >lessee's cars to another shipper was unusual, but the free advertising, >not offered to smaller shippers, was a really big complaint. > >Tony Thompson |
|
|
|
I agree with you, Tony. :-) I always understood the intention of
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
the 'ban' was to curb such abuses, whereas advertisement of one's own products on one's own freight cars (covered hoppers, reefers, box cars) did not incur so much regulatory wrath. Which may have something to do with why it's not hard to find photos of freight cars carrying product advertising in the 1950's and especially from the 1960's onwards. If you think about it, once the railroads began to put passenger train advertising on their freight cars, you had railroads forced to carry freight cars that advertised competitors' services! Here the 'injured party' would be a railroad and not a shipper, so maybe the ICC didn't consider it to be unfair. Or maybe it was just such a longstanding practice that no one challenged it. Tim O'Connor Kurt Laughlin wrote:Maybe it's the same thing stated another way, but my impression wasAs I stated back in 2002, this aspect was a very small part of |
|
|
|
Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
Kurt Laughlin wrote:
Maybe it's the same thing stated another way, but my impression was that it was the small shippers who complained about using cars with their competitor's logos all over them, and argued to the ICC that the free advertising provided by the logos was tantamount to an illegal rebate for the large shippers.As I stated back in 2002, this aspect was a very small part of the abuses which the ICC stepped in to correct. The free advertising was indeed ruled a rebate, but this is summarized briefly in the ruling, while there are pages and pages on the remainder of the docket issues. (The biggest had to do with mileage-charge abuses by roundabout or unnecessary car movements, and with lease contracts in which shippers had an incentive to create extra mileage.) It is my impression from reading some of the ICC testimony that the assignment of one lessee's cars to another shipper was unusual, but the free advertising, not offered to smaller shippers, was a really big complaint. 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 |
|
|
|
Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Hendrickson What prompted the ICC ruling was the extensive practice by car leasing companies like North American, Northwestern Refrigerator Line, Union Refrigerator Transit, etc. of leasing reefers to small shippers and plastering the shippers' advertising all over them, which then in effect rendered the cars unacceptable for loading by any other shipper. The railroads complained that this amounted to providing shippers with a sizable benefit for which they were not charged, as well as making the cars unavailable when the railroads had traffic (back-hauls, for example) that otherwise could have been loaded in them. ----- Original Message ----- Maybe it's the same thing stated another way, but my impression was that it was the small shippers who complained about using cars with their competitor's logos all over them, and argued to the ICC that the free advertising provided by the logos was tantamount to an illegal rebate for the large shippers. KL |
|
|
|
Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
Tim O'Connor wrote:
So there you have it. I suppose one should preface one's question with "What is the answer today?" since it seems likely to change tomorrow.Read Richard Hendrickson's clear summary. My 2002 comments about 1946 and thereafter were based on a misunderstanding of the rule. It is clear that "advertisement" was applied in a very specific sense. 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 |
|
|
|
Richard Hendrickson
On Mar 24, 2007, at 9:49 PM, Jim Betz wrote:
Your post to Malcolm on this topic has me confused. I thought that theJim, as Tony Thompson has already posted, the ruling was made by the Interstate Commerce Commission. The ICC ruling took effect early in 1934, after which billboard advertising could not be applied to new or repainted cars. Such advertising had to be removed from cars already in service by 1938, so Al Westerfield is correct that most billboard cars were gone ca. 1937 and all were gone by 1938. What prompted the ICC ruling was the extensive practice by car leasing companies like North American, Northwestern Refrigerator Line, Union Refrigerator Transit, etc. of leasing reefers to small shippers and plastering the shippers' advertising all over them, which then in effect rendered the cars unacceptable for loading by any other shipper. The railroads complained that this amounted to providing shippers with a sizable benefit for which they were not charged, as well as making the cars unavailable when the railroads had traffic (back-hauls, for example) that otherwise could have been loaded in them. From the outset the ICC ruling permitted cars owned by, or on long-term lease to, a shipper to have the shipper's logo on them IF they were in assigned service and were never used to carry products made by anyone else. There were a few examples of this in the late '30s and '40s, and more examples (especially on RSMs used by meat packers) in the 1950s. Specific products could not be advertised, however, unless the cars were used exclusively for those products, or for the raw materials used to make the products, a situation that was relatively rare though there were a few examples of it in the 1950s. None of this is mysterious except to those who seem bent on being contentious without examining the documentation. Richard Hendrickson |
|
|
|
Jim, here is what Tony Thompson posted on 6/6/2002 --
Guy Wilber wrote So there you have it. I suppose one should preface one's question withThanks for adding this item, Guy. I was not aware of the specifics of "What is the answer today?" since it seems likely to change tomorrow. Tim O'Connor ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Betz wrote:I do not have the date of the actual court ruling. Any one know it?Jim (and Tim), it was an ICC ruling. Not AAR and not a court. |
|
|
|
Tony Thompson
Jim Betz wrote:
I do not have the date of the actual court ruling. Any one know it?Jim (and Tim), it was an ICC ruling. Not AAR and not a court. Richard and I have both retrieved all the details from ICC documents, and he has laid it out clearly in the text of the billboard reefer book he wrote with Ed Kaminski. It's in our pipeline to publish. 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 |
|
|
|
Richard,
Your post to Malcolm on this topic has me confused. I thought that the ban on 'advertising on freight cars' was only related to those markings that were for products other than those products 'made' by the company who owned the car. Ie. a reefer that was owned by Rath could have any thing Rath wanted on the side ... but if the car was owned by some other company then it could not. Isn't that actually what the ruling was? However - most of the billboard reefers were affected by the change and - per Al Westerfield (in a post here on this list?) the majority of the billboard reefers were gone in '37 and they 'all' were gone in '38. I do not have the date of the actual court ruling. Any one know it? How about the court case name and venue? - Jim in San Jose |
|
|