Date
1 - 17 of 17
Reefer question - moving fish?
|
Frank Valoczy <destron@...>
Several locales in Michigan's thumb are listed in "The Pere Marquette in
1945" as being commercial fishing centres, and I've seen some photos showing aspects of this as well. I'd assume that fish would have been moved by reefer; I'm curious as to whose reefers would be most likely to have transported said fish around 1952? Frank Valoczy Vancouver, BC |
|
|
|
Non-frozen fish moved by express reefer, if it travelled by rail!
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I don't want to think about what fresh fish would be like after travelling for a week or ten days... Tim O'Connor Several locales in Michigan's thumb are listed in "The Pere Marquette in |
|
|
|
Frank Valoczy <destron@...>
Now that's an interesting thought... would express reefers have run over
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
lines with no passenger service, to get loaded up with said non-frozen fish? And if the fish was frozen, whose reefers were most common in that part of Michigan? Frank Valoczy Vancouver, BC Tim O'Connor wrote:
|
|
|
|
Peter Ness
While the New England fishing fleets existed or at least into the 1950's, most fish brought to market was about a week old or so by the time it was sold...
Boats left from ports of Boston, Gloucester and elsewhere to Georges Bank, fished several days to make tonnage and returned to port. The fish was iced (frozen) on the boats until reaching the fish pier. Since the fish was iced on the boats during the catch, the only way that fish was moved beyond the local fish market at the fish pier was as frozen fish. Upon arrival at the dock the fish needed to be thawed for any additional processing (chowders, fish sticks or cakes, fish meal, etc.) In Boston there were fish processing houses and a fish market. All fish was sold off the boat at market price. Some stayed in Boston; sold to restaurants, re-sellers and supermarkets, some was processed and some sold through wholesalers to distributors at market value was loaded on the the New Haven's "Fish Train" which was a block of iced reefers for shipment to NYC. These were not express reefers, but standard reefers that moved in a dedicated train. It arrived from Boston to NYC in less than five hours, but again, the fish was already days old. Fish was also shipped from Gloucester by rail to Boston in a similar manner. I can't speak on the fishing indsury in other parts of the country, but it was quite common that "Boston schrod" was available "fresh" as far west as Chicago. So, it was quite common the fish were a week to 10 days old by the time they hit the dinner table and they really dind't smell, nor were they decomposed. Tim is correct, fresh or thawed fish was not transported anywhere. It was already at it's final destination. Hope this helps to clarify, Peter Ness --------------------------------------------------------------------- Non-frozen fish moved by express reefer, if it travelled by rail! I don't want to think about what fresh fish would be like after travelling for a week or ten days... Tim O'Connor |
|
|
|
SUVCWORR@...
PM was owned by C&O. C&O was part of Fruit Growers Express. Good bet cars were FGEX or foreign cars being backloaded.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Rich Orr -----Original Message-----
From: Frank Valoczy <destron@...> To: STMFC@... Sent: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:03 pm Subject: Re: [STMFC] Reefer question - moving fish? Now that's an interesting thought... would express reefers have run over lines with no passenger service, to get loaded up with said non-frozen fish? And if the fish was frozen, whose reefers were most common in that part of Michigan? Frank Valoczy Vancouver, BC Tim O'Connor wrote: Non-frozen fish moved by express reefer, if it travelled by rail! I don't want to think about what fresh fish would be like after travelling for a week or ten days... Tim O'Connor Several locales in Michigan's thumb are listed in "The Pere Marquette in 1945" as being commercial fishing centres, and I've seen some photos showing aspects of this as well. I'd assume that fish would have been moved by reefer; I'm curious as to whose reefers would be most likely to have transported said fish around 1952? Frank Valoczy Vancouver, BC ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links !DSPAM:1291,4d7278a4308689839269039! ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC/ Individual Email | Traditional http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC/join (Yahoo! ID required) STMFC-digest@... STMFC-fullfeatured@... STMFC-unsubscribe@... http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ |
|
|
|
Frederick Freitas <prrinvt@...>
GUYZ,
In my youth in Boston I had occasions to watch the wooden barrels if iced fish being loaded into reefers for shipment by the NH. My Dad said it went to NYC & Phila.. Now, NYC I cam understand, but Philly sounds like a stretch. Lobsters and other shell fish was loaded in the same type of wood barrels then topped with ice. Did the shell fish go further? There have been comments, unverified by me, that lobsters were sent far off line in express reefers beyond NYC. Anyone care to venture where? Either way, the car had to be steam cleaned before produce loading for the return trip, lest the lettuce smell fishy ! After all, someone had to haul the lobsters to Chicago, and other mid continent cities. Fred Freitas From: Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> To: STMFC@... Sent: Saturday, March 5, 2011 12:53 PM Subject: Re: [STMFC] Reefer question - moving fish? Non-frozen fish moved by express reefer, if it travelled by rail! I don't want to think about what fresh fish would be like after travelling for a week or ten days... Tim O'Connor Several locales in Michigan's thumb are listed in "The Pere Marquette in [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|
|
|
al_brown03
Green, "Northern Pacific Railway of McGee and Nixon", p 64, says: "Express reefers were ... used on the Alaskan or North Coast Limited ... only when they had fragile fruit, excess express, or when salmon was in season." The train shown is an eastbound Alaskan with five express reefers of cherries.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla. --- In STMFC@..., Frederick Freitas <prrinvt@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
water.kresse@...
Both the PM and C&O owned stock in FGEX.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
If you go up to the Saginaw Bay area nowadays you will also find smoked fish . . . . Walley Pike, White Fish, Trout, Sturgeon, etc. That requires refrig also. Al ----- Original Message -----
From: SUVCWORR@... To: STMFC@... Sent: Saturday, March 5, 2011 5:04:49 PM Subject: Re: [STMFC] Reefer question - moving fish? PM was owned by C&O. C&O was part of Fruit Growers Express. Good bet cars were FGEX or foreign cars being backloaded. Rich Orr -----Original Message----- From: Frank Valoczy <destron@...> To: STMFC@... Sent: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 4:03 pm Subject: Re: [STMFC] Reefer question - moving fish? Now that's an interesting thought... would express reefers have run over lines with no passenger service, to get loaded up with said non-frozen fish? And if the fish was frozen, whose reefers were most common in that part of Michigan? Frank Valoczy Vancouver, BC Tim O'Connor wrote: Non-frozen fish moved by express reefer, if it travelled by rail! I don't want to think about what fresh fish would be like after travelling for a week or ten days... Tim O'Connor Several locales in Michigan's thumb are listed in "The Pere Marquette in 1945" as being commercial fishing centres, and I've seen some photos showing aspects of this as well. I'd assume that fish would have been moved by reefer; I'm curious as to whose reefers would be most likely to have transported said fish around 1952? Frank Valoczy Vancouver, BC ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links !DSPAM:1291,4d7278a4308689839269039! ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC/ Individual Email | Traditional http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC/join (Yahoo! ID required) STMFC-digest@... STMFC-fullfeatured@... STMFC-unsubscribe@... http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|
|
|
PBowers
A bit off the region but in Ontario, like Michigan, we had a lot of fish moving with the business finally petering out for the railways in the mid sixties. The last movements were truck but the methods of shipping were still the same.
In the mid fifties carload fish shipments were fast coming to an end. Cars used were express reefers and there was a fair bit of LCL which was handled in baggage cars. These movements frequently went to New York or other US destinations. Boxes of fish were loaded and covered with ice. One comment about fish being frozen in ice to my understanding is not correct. Fish were iced on boats to keep them chilled and "fresh." Again while not the area in question, http://www.goldseal.ca/wildsalmon/salmon_history.asp?article=8 gives some interesting info and a photo of fish shipments in regular iced reefers from British Columbia to Boston. As for the Michigan operations, I would expect that both home road and REA reefers would be found in the fish transportation service. This would pretty well match the Canadian experience. Peter At 09:28 PM 05/03/2011, you wrote: 4a. Reefer question - moving fish?Peter Bowers |
|
|
|
Peter
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Yeah, right. That would explain why you could buy fresh lobster, oysters, scallops, other shellfish, fresh salmon, etc in Chicago. 24-hour transportation existed from the east coast to the midwest! Tim O'Connor Tim is correct, fresh or thawed fish was not transported anywhere. It was already at it's final destination. |
|
|
In the mid fifties carload fish shipments were fast coming to anThat's correct. The "daily catch" on small fishing boats was always fresh (unfrozen) fish and shellfish. It's only on long distance boats (like trips to Georges Bank etc) that fish are flash frozen. Lobster are typically transported live -- same with clams, and mussels. If you have ever cooked mussels, you know that you never want to prepare one that is dead before you start. Tim O'Connor |
|
|
|
Fritz Milhaupt
--- In STMFC@..., "Frank Valoczy" <destron@...> wrote:
Well, the PM's streamlined baggage/express and baggage/express/RPO cars were built with fish racks, but I've seen no evidence to indicate whether those racks were used for their intended purpose. One of the bigger points of origin for fresh fish on the PM was Bay Port, on Saginaw Bay north of Sebewaing. I've been looking for years for photos of any reefers used in this service, without much luck. I've seen a couple of baggage/express cars, though. I've also seen one photo of a Great Northern-lettered express reefer on the PM, but there was no information with the photo to explain just what its circumstances were. -Fritz Milhaupt Modeling Editor, PMHS |
|
|
|
Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
Fritz Milhaupt wrote:
I've also seen one photo of a Great Northern-lettered express reefer on the PM, but there was no information with the photo to explain just what its circumstances were.You don't state the era, Fritz, but after the formation of Railway Express, most express reefer owners put most or all of their cars into the REA pool, and they could then be used anywhere. In 1953, GN contributed almost 10 percent of the REA express reefer pool. 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 |
|
|
|
A. Premo <armprem2@...>
The CN used some express reefers to ship fish.Armand Premo
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
----- Original Message -----
From: Anthony Thompson To: STMFC@... Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2011 2:13 PM Subject: [STMFC] Re: Reefer question - moving fish? Fritz Milhaupt wrote: > I've also seen one photo of a Great Northern-lettered express reefer > on the PM, but there was no information with the photo to explain > just what its circumstances were. You don't state the era, Fritz, but after the formation of Railway Express, most express reefer owners put most or all of their cars into the REA pool, and they could then be used anywhere. In 1953, GN contributed almost 10 percent of the REA express reefer pool. 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2804 - Release Date: 04/11/10 06:32:00 ____________________________________________________________ Groupon™ Official Site 1 ridiculously huge coupon a day. Get 50-90% off your city's best! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/4d73fe34205806fe785st05vuc |
|
|
|
Peter Ness
Hi Tim,
Yes, the shellfish (a misnomer term but including lobster, shrimp, oysters, clams, scallops, mollusks, etc) and fish cycles to market were very different. Many shimp, scallops and clams were processed and frozen before shipment, but not all by any means. Oysters and of course lobster, were not commonly processed and frozen (exceptions being the processing of lobster tails, oyster stew and other canned products). Probably the only common step for fish and shellfish was in processing "seafood" chowder or the breaded seafood that went into frozen foods (i.e., "TV dinners", early Gordons and Van de Kamp frozen seafood, etc.) Most shellfish was already sold when the boats returned to dock, while most fish was sold at the dock while being unloaded - again, this is all specific to Boston/New England and perhaps was different at other fish pier locations, and the fish market itself changed over time as catches declined. At one point, it was not uncommon for there to be different buyers for cod, pollack and haddock from the same boat. I saw this happen, and yes the fish was sorted from the hold onto the dock. Shellfish was indeed a "daily catch". The majority of fish was not. In Boston near the fish pier, A&P and SS Pierce both had processing facilities for seafood of all types, but the majority of the processing (including those that simply iced fish in barrels) were re-sellers; bought off the boat, sold to the highest bidder and transported - rail movements out of Boston in a dedicated daily train. Gordons was located near Gloucester. The Fish Train I mentioned earlier was Boston to NYC. Shipments on the New Haven to Chicago would have been routed via Maybrook but I don't recall reading or hearing about dedicated trains or express shipment of fish via that route much after the early post-war years so perhaps by then trucking was taking over. I do not think it was common (but I can't say it "never" happened that fish moved in baggage-express equipment on the New Haven. Most non-meat reefers in photos of South Boston Freight Terminal were WFEX, FGEX, some BREX, ATSF and of course PFE. I can't recall seeing a photo of an express reefer in the freight yard and not commonly in freight consist photos, either. Most express cars into Boston were non-refrigerated (refrigerated types were also used, but were in paper and periodical service) REA and PRR; NYC Pacemaker boxcars (that rode the B&A) but all these (including NYC) went to South Station, not the fish pier in the freight yard. So, there's not much evidence that express reefers were used for moving the bulk of fish or other seafood out of Boston. I suspect that at some point NE-1/NE-2 (B&M/NH connection) may have moved fish and other seafood from Northern New England, but I haven't studied that train very much. If such was the case, car movements could have been directed to either NYC or Maybrook at Cedar Hill (the train was express to NYC so any cars going to Maybrook would have been dropped off as a block, no cars would have been added to this train at Cedar Hill). The B&M brought fish from Gloucester into Boston from the North, but I think that may have been trucked to the fish pier. The Union Freight RR did move cars to fish processers along Northern, Commercial and Atlantic Avenues between North and South Station, but the vast majority of work took place close to the piers. I could see most freshwater fish such as Great Lakes catches being handled differently. It seems most would be daily fishers compared to the New England fishing fleet which would account for very different cycles. Atlantic Salmon was popular in New England, but not too many freshwater fish were sold to the public in markets at the time. I recall restaurants offering trout and less commonly catfish as far as fresh water fish went, but I'm sure regionally fresh water fish was much more common. Regards, Peter ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Yeah, right. That would explain why you could buy fresh lobster, oysters, scallops, other shellfish, fresh salmon, etc in Chicago. 24-hour transportation existed from the east coast to the midwest! Tim O'Connor |
|
|
|
Regarding commercial fishing on the Great Lakes, this 1922 report
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
http://www.glfc.org/pubs_out/fishing_industry_greatlakes.PDF contains some interesting information about fish products, packing, and transportation. I only skimmed parts of it, but pp 560-1 seem particularly useful. Commercial fishing on the Great Lakes was down to a trickle by the mid-50s. Bob Sterner St. Paul, MN --- In STMFC@..., "Peter Ness" <prness@...> wrote:
I could see most freshwater fish such as Great Lakes catches being handled differently. It seems most would be daily fishers compared to the New England fishing fleet which would account for very different cycles. Atlantic Salmon was popular in New England, but not too many freshwater fish were sold to the public in markets at the time. I recall restaurants offering trout and less commonly catfish as far as fresh water fish went, but I'm sure regionally fresh water fish was much more common. |
|
|
|
np328
Frank, I have documentation from NP records regarding fish shipments you may be interested in seeing. Send me your e-mail account off line and we can go from there.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Some of the comments I have seen: 1912-1930 Comment - Only older refrigerator cars should be used for fish loading because once they are used in fish service, these cars are unsuitable for anything else. - Yes, I know you are looking for 1952, I am not sure when or if the above might have changed. I do have some documentation of Pacific fish (Seattle-Portland) being transported to several destinations, Chicago and east as far as Atlantic coast destinations in these records. Many of these are in or very near to your desired time frame. Car numbers available in some cases. I will also try to get this and other data onto this site (in my lifetime, if possible). Jim Dick - St. Paul ....................... I'd assume that fish would have been moved by reefer; I'm curious as to whose reefers would be most likely to have transported said fish around 1952?
|
|
|