Topics

Foreign Road Stock Cars


Schuyler Larrabee
 

The question about whether stock would be unloaded from one car for rest and
watering, then loaded onto another road's car for further movement, was
discussed in detail on some list recently; I thought it was this one, but
perhaps not. At any rate, it was established that the >common< procedure
was to reload the stock back into the same car they arrived in, but that in
the meantime, while the stock was being rested and watered, the car would
also be cleaned out and resupplied with fresh bedding, water and whatever
else the stock required for the rest of the journey. Only in the event of a
car failing some inspection and being taken out of service would the stock
be reloaded into another line's cars.



When you think about it, this only makes sense, as the cars required a "rest
stop" as much as the stock did.

SGL

Dave

It's a good question. I don't know about livestock flows, but it does
seem to me that many urban stockyards were far larger than required for
the local market (i.e. slaughterhouses). So I assume that the largest
stockyards like Omaha, KC, Chicago, Denver were intermediate points for
stock to be SOLD either to slaughterhouses, or to brokers. And if they
were sold to brokers, then wouldn't they be shipped on a new bill of
lading to another stockyard? But railroad stock pens like Laramie WY
or places like that probably were for resting and feeding only, and
the livestock probably were reloaded into the same cars on the same
bill of lading.

The 28 hour rule limited the distance that could be covered between
rests -- maybe 500 miles (e.g. Omaha-Chicago) on a good day.

Which doesn't really explain foreign stock cars, does it? :-) Just be
mindful that not all stock cars were loaded with livestock. Some might
be loaded with lumber, or fresh tomatoes (PRR short hauls to Campbells
in Camden NJ), or even coal!

Tim O'Connor

-------------------------------------

I do not want to re-open the entire fleet balance debate, but I have not
yet researched what a viable mix of stock cars would be on a PRR stock train
(e.g. Man-of-war) in central Pennsylvania (after resting the east bound
animals at Herr Island in Pittsburgh).

I guess the generic question is, once a stock car is loaded with stock that
is destined for a specific location, could that car be replaced when the
stock was removed for rest/feeding/car cleaning at an intermediate location,
or would the car and its stock go all the way to the destination?

I would think this would govern whether western road stock cars make it
east of Herr Island. I need to start identifying what models to buy.

Are there any era dependencies? I am modeling WWII.

Thanks,
Dave Evans







=======
Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
(Email Guard: 7.0.0.18, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.17140)
http://www.pctools.com <http://www.pctools.com/?cclick=EmailFooterClean_51>
=======





=======
Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
(Email Guard: 7.0.0.18, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.17140)
http://www.pctools.com/
=======


Thomas Birkett
 

I wonder if SIT, "Storage in Transit" was in place? If so the original bill-of -lading might be used. In this way a through rate would apply, from origin to destination even though there might be a storage period of some duration in the middle of the move. This worked for grain in the era before 1960 and after. "Milling in transit" was similar for wheat and other products, mostly agricultural
 
Tom

--- On Fri, 3/18/11, Tim O'Connor <@timboconnor> wrote:


From: Tim O'Connor <@timboconnor>
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Foreign Road Stock Cars
To: STMFC@...
Date: Friday, March 18, 2011, 3:46 PM


 



Dave

It's a good question. I don't know about livestock flows, but it does
seem to me that many urban stockyards were far larger than required for
the local market (i.e. slaughterhouses). So I assume that the largest
stockyards like Omaha, KC, Chicago, Denver were intermediate points for
stock to be SOLD either to slaughterhouses, or to brokers. And if they
were sold to brokers, then wouldn't they be shipped on a new bill of
lading to another stockyard? But railroad stock pens like Laramie WY
or places like that probably were for resting and feeding only, and
the livestock probably were reloaded into the same cars on the same
bill of lading.

The 28 hour rule limited the distance that could be covered between
rests -- maybe 500 miles (e.g. Omaha-Chicago) on a good day.

Which doesn't really explain foreign stock cars, does it? :-) Just be
mindful that not all stock cars were loaded with livestock. Some might
be loaded with lumber, or fresh tomatoes (PRR short hauls to Campbells
in Camden NJ), or even coal!

Tim O'Connor

-------------------------------------

I do not want to re-open the entire fleet balance debate, but I have not yet researched what a viable mix of stock cars would be on a PRR stock train (e.g. Man-of-war) in central Pennsylvania (after resting the east bound animals at Herr Island in Pittsburgh).

I guess the generic question is, once a stock car is loaded with stock that is destined for a specific location, could that car be replaced when the stock was removed for rest/feeding/car cleaning at an intermediate location, or would the car and its stock go all the way to the destination?

I would think this would govern whether western road stock cars make it east of Herr Island. I need to start identifying what models to buy.

Are there any era dependencies? I am modeling WWII.

Thanks,
Dave Evans







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Dave Nelson
 

Think about the paperwork for a sec: Farmer Brown puts his 30 steers in the
hands of the SP for transit to the public stockyards in Salt Lake City.
Less than 28 hours later, the SP stops an unloads Farmer Brown's steers for
rest. Once unloaded, how do they know which 30 (nice and fat) steers are
Brown's... and not those 30 old, scrawny, dried up dairy cows Jones has
shipped? Probably the waybill. Some kind of paperwork has to go with the
steers; they have to be in their own pen; they have to continue to their
intended destination. Something has to be done to link Brown's shipment
with the pen Brown's steers are in. No other way would ensure Brown gets
the right auction price in SLC. Does that particular paperwork include the
Car Initial and Number? I dunno, but I'll bet it does. I would imagine
what is used is the waybill. After all, Brown was there when his steers
were loaded; he, like most other consignors, checked his car and was
satisfied *that* car was good.

Rest time has passed and Brown's steers are reloaded. Which is easier for
the people doing the work -- put the steers into the same car as they
arrived OR put them in any car and mess with the waybill (copy to Brown?)?
I'll wager it is the former, just as Schuyler describes, below. It's just
easier.

Dave Nelson

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of
Schuyler Larrabee

The question about whether stock would be unloaded from one car for rest and
watering, then loaded onto another road's car for further movement, was
discussed in detail on some list recently; I thought it was this one, but
perhaps not. At any rate, it was established that the >common< procedure
was to reload the stock back into the same car they arrived in, but that in
the meantime, while the stock was being rested and watered, the car would
also be cleaned out and resupplied with fresh bedding, water and whatever
else the stock required for the rest of the journey. Only in the event of a
car failing some inspection and being taken out of service would the stock
be reloaded into another line's cars.



When you think about it, this only makes sense, as the cars required a "rest
stop" as much as the stock did.

SGL


S hed <shed999@...>
 

And Dave, I know that the SP, T&NO, MK&T and other Texas roads would ship watermelons in stock cars too.

- Steve Hedlund, Silver Lake, WA



To: STMFC@...
From: @tnbirke
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 19:48:02 -0700
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Foreign Road Stock Cars






I wonder if SIT, "Storage in Transit" was in place? If so the original bill-of -lading might be used. In this way a through rate would apply, from origin to destination even though there might be a storage period of some duration in the middle of the move. This worked for grain in the era before 1960 and after. "Milling in transit" was similar for wheat and other products, mostly agricultural

Tom

--- On Fri, 3/18/11, Tim O'Connor <@timboconnor> wrote:

From: Tim O'Connor <@timboconnor>
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Foreign Road Stock Cars
To: STMFC@...
Date: Friday, March 18, 2011, 3:46 PM



Dave

It's a good question. I don't know about livestock flows, but it does
seem to me that many urban stockyards were far larger than required for
the local market (i.e. slaughterhouses). So I assume that the largest
stockyards like Omaha, KC, Chicago, Denver were intermediate points for
stock to be SOLD either to slaughterhouses, or to brokers. And if they
were sold to brokers, then wouldn't they be shipped on a new bill of
lading to another stockyard? But railroad stock pens like Laramie WY
or places like that probably were for resting and feeding only, and
the livestock probably were reloaded into the same cars on the same
bill of lading.

The 28 hour rule limited the distance that could be covered between
rests -- maybe 500 miles (e.g. Omaha-Chicago) on a good day.

Which doesn't really explain foreign stock cars, does it? :-) Just be
mindful that not all stock cars were loaded with livestock. Some might
be loaded with lumber, or fresh tomatoes (PRR short hauls to Campbells
in Camden NJ), or even coal!

Tim O'Connor

-------------------------------------

I do not want to re-open the entire fleet balance debate, but I have not yet researched what a viable mix of stock cars would be on a PRR stock train (e.g. Man-of-war) in central Pennsylvania (after resting the east bound animals at Herr Island in Pittsburgh).

I guess the generic question is, once a stock car is loaded with stock that is destined for a specific location, could that car be replaced when the stock was removed for rest/feeding/car cleaning at an intermediate location, or would the car and its stock go all the way to the destination?

I would think this would govern whether western road stock cars make it east of Herr Island. I need to start identifying what models to buy.

Are there any era dependencies? I am modeling WWII.

Thanks,
Dave Evans






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


gn3397 <heninger@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., "Dave Nelson" <Lake_Muskoka@...> wrote:

Think about the paperwork for a sec: Farmer Brown puts his 30 steers in the
hands of the SP for transit to the public stockyards in Salt Lake City.
Less than 28 hours later, the SP stops an unloads Farmer Brown's steers for
rest. Once unloaded, how do they know which 30 (nice and fat) steers are
Brown's... and not those 30 old, scrawny, dried up dairy cows Jones has
shipped? Probably the waybill. Some kind of paperwork has to go with the
steers; they have to be in their own pen; they have to continue to their
intended destination. Something has to be done to link Brown's shipment
with the pen Brown's steers are in. No other way would ensure Brown gets
the right auction price in SLC. Does that particular paperwork include the
Car Initial and Number? I dunno, but I'll bet it does. I would imagine
what is used is the waybill. After all, Brown was there when his steers
were loaded; he, like most other consignors, checked his car and was
satisfied *that* car was good.

Rest time has passed and Brown's steers are reloaded. Which is easier for
the people doing the work -- put the steers into the same car as they
arrived OR put them in any car and mess with the waybill (copy to Brown?)?
I'll wager it is the former, just as Schuyler describes, below. It's just
easier.

Dave Nelson
Dave,
A few comments on your post. First of all, remember that in the steam era, cattle were branded, and brands were registered with the respective states stockmen's associations. This is to prevent exactly the situation that you describe above. Being caught altering brands (essentially, stealing livestock) was not good for one's health!

Second, cattle shipments were often accompanied by either the rancher or his representatives (drovers) all the way to their final destination, again to supervise the loading and unloading of the livestock. I am most familiar with the Great Northern, and they had several ancient coaches that were provided for "drover cars". I know other roads used cabooses, etc. These make for some interesting models.

Third, I have several Thirties era bills of lading from the GN that are for shipments of cattle from the southwest in SP/T&NO stockcars, with routing specified SP/UP/GN (the interchange in Butte, MT), so obviously the originating car was used for the entire trip, at least in these instances.

Sincerely,
Robert D. Heninger
Iowa City, IA


Tim O'Connor
 

Robert D. Heninger wrote

Second, cattle shipments were often accompanied by either the rancher or his
representatives (drovers) all the way to their final destination, again to
supervise the loading and unloading of the livestock.
Is that really the case? I thought that drovers typically accompanied livestock
only as far as larger livestock markets i.e. stock "yards", where the livestock
could be auctioned off. Once the livestock was sold, then in most cases it would
have travelled directly to the slaughterhouse where I'm sure the buyer had people
who knew how to handle livestock.

Chickens of course were an exception. :-)

Tim O'Connor


Tim O'Connor
 

Robert D. Heninger wrote

> I have several Thirties era bills of lading from the GN that are for
> shipments of cattle from the southwest in SP/T&NO stockcars, with routing
> specified SP/UP/GN (the interchange in Butte, MT)

That is an interesting shipment, because it sounds like a case of young
cattle (calves) being sold to ranchers for grazing and fattening, before
"feedlots" became the popular way to fatten cattle. I wonder what percentage
of livestock shipments were of this type (i.e. relocating livestock) versus
the shipment of mature animals for slaughter.

Tim O'Connor


Dennis Storzek
 

--- In STMFC@..., Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:

That is an interesting shipment, because it sounds like a case of young
cattle (calves) being sold to ranchers for grazing and fattening, before
"feedlots" became the popular way to fatten cattle. I wonder what percentage
of livestock shipments were of this type (i.e. relocating livestock) versus
the shipment of mature animals for slaughter.

Tim O'Connor
That's what I've been thinking, also. Unless the upper crust of eastern society had an acquired taste for grass fed beef, very few animals moved directly from western ranges to eastern slaughterhouses; they all stopped off in my neck of the woods in the Midwest for a couple of months to get fat n' juicy on corn before being sold to the packers. Irrigated corn and western feed lots have pretty much ended the practice, but there are still some small feed lot operations around here, 50 - 100 head being a common size, and the animals arrive by truck. Go on to market that way, too. But, getting back to the steam era, the use of feed lots would drive a car flow where western road cars would only come as far east as Iowa, Illinois, and perhaps Indiana and Ohio before going back, with the fattened cattle later going east on Midwestern road cars, and in this case, PRR and NYC are Midwestern roads, too.

Dennis


gn3397 <heninger@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:

Robert D. Heninger wrote

Second, cattle shipments were often accompanied by either the rancher or his
representatives (drovers) all the way to their final destination, again to
supervise the loading and unloading of the livestock.
Is that really the case? I thought that drovers typically accompanied livestock
only as far as larger livestock markets i.e. stock "yards", where the livestock
could be auctioned off. Once the livestock was sold, then in most cases it would
have travelled directly to the slaughterhouse where I'm sure the buyer had people
who knew how to handle livestock.

Chickens of course were an exception. :-)

Tim O'Connor
Tim,
Thanks for the opportunity to clarify my statement. By "final destination" I did mean the stock yard where the cattle were sold by the rancher. The stockyard I am most familiar with in West Fargo, ND was immediately adjacent to an Armour packing plant, so the livestock did not require rail transport to their literal final destination. I believe many packing plants were similarly situated, were they not?

Sincerely,
Robert D. Heninger


Douglas Harding
 

Tim, I think Bob meant to say "where the livestock was sold/changed
ownership". Western roads often shipped livestock to major stockyard towns
like Omaha and Chicago, where the slaughter houses were directly connected
to the stockyards. Or this was where buyers for slaughter houses purchase
animals for shipment to distant slaughter houses. Once ownership changed,
drovers/wranglers who were in the employ of the original owner were free to
return home on the next passenger train. The new owners, ie the slaughter
house or feedlot owner was responsible for providing agents who looked after
the livestock. And yes these were people who knew how to handle livestock.
Many a farm boy got such a job in the big city because he knew his way
around livestock.



The movement of feeder calves was big business, esp for roads that served
the western grass lands where cow/calf operations were very common. IE a
range out west would bred and birth cattle, wean the calves, then sell them
to farmers and feed lot operators in the mid-west (read corn country). These
farmers and feed lots would feed the calves, that is fatten them for market.
When they reached market weight, they would be loaded and shipped to the
union stockyard of choice, or sold to a commission buyer who worked the
territory buying for the slaughter houses.



Sheep tended to moved directly from the grasslands to slaughter. Hogs tended
to be raised in the Midwest, next to the corn fields, and thus went directly
from farmer to slaughter. Though were was/is a market for feeder pigs, ie
one farmer births the pigs, then sells them to another who feeds them to
market weight.





Doug Harding

www.iowacentralrr.org


Tim O'Connor
 

Bob, no doubt many packing plants were close by stock yards. But as I said,
the MAJOR stock yards like Denver, Omaha et al were vast, far too vast for
the local packers to absorb. They were primarily "stock markets" (hence, the
term) for livestock redistribution.

Tim O'Connor

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify my statement. By "final destination" I did mean the stock yard where the cattle were sold by the rancher. The stockyard I am most familiar with in West Fargo, ND was immediately adjacent to an Armour packing plant, so the livestock did not require rail transport to their literal final destination. I believe many packing plants were similarly situated, were they not?

Sincerely,
Robert D. Heninger


Ray Breyer
 

Bob, no doubt many packing plants were close by stock
yards. But as I said, the MAJOR stock yards like Denver,
Omaha et al were vast, far too vast for the local packers
to absorb. They were primarily "stock markets" (hence, the
term) for livestock redistribution.
Tim O'Connor

Be careful about blanket statements like this Tim! :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Stock_Yards

Everyone seems to forget about Chicago. Oh sure, people DO mention it, but in passing, as if it were a bit player or on another planet. Omaha? Please; chump change whern compared to CUS.

82% of all domestic meat production in the early 1900s is a HUGE amount. Besides opinions about "The Jungle" there's been very little historical research done on the yards, but I suspect that at certain times of the year, the yards had a hard time keeping up with the demand from all of the huge packing plant both around the yards and in the greater Chicago area in general.

I was lucky enough to be able to download all fo the Sanborns for the plant just before the last free password went away; over 100 maps in detail plus something I've never seen before on Sanborns: isometric drawings of each packing house and its surrounding area. It's an amazing resource, and gives you some idea of just how big everything really was.

Chicago's yards certainly were set up as a brokerage point; the photos of the pens themselves all back this up (each pen was leased by the yards and labeled with the broker's name and ID number). But from what little information I've been able to pick up here and there, those brokerages mostly served the nearby houses themselves. Very little stock ended up leaving Chicago once it got in.

Ray Breyer
Elgin, IL


Tim O'Connor
 

By the same token, Ray, I would not accept a single Chicago-based
reference to a statistic like that. 82% is a huge amount, in fact,
it is a ludicrous amount. Considering the state of such statistics
in 1900, how could anyone possibly know exactly how much meat was
being consumed in the US at that time, and where it all came from?

I found another Wikipedia article on meat packing that lists a number
of other major meatpacking cities in the US. But it doesn't mention
anything east of Chicago at all, nor anything west of Omaha, including
Denver.

There's no doubt meat packing in Chicago was a huge business, and I
think you are right that most cattle going to Chicago were processed
there. But whole "unit trains" of stock originated at other cities
like Sioux City, Omaha, etc -- That indicates to me that stock were
being redistributed from those locations.

Tim O'Connor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Stock_Yards

Everyone seems to forget about Chicago. Oh sure, people DO mention it, but in passing, as if it were a bit player or on another planet. Omaha? Please; chump change whern compared to CUS.

82% of all domestic meat production in the early 1900s is a HUGE amount. Besides opinions about "The Jungle" there's been very little historical research done on the yards, but I suspect that at certain times of the year, the yards had a hard time keeping up with the demand from all of the huge packing plant both around the yards and in the greater Chicago area in general.

Chicago's yards certainly were set up as a brokerage point; the photos of the pens themselves all back this up (each pen was leased by the yards and labeled with the broker's name and ID number). But from what little information I've been able to pick up here and there, those brokerages mostly served the nearby houses themselves. Very little stock ended up leaving Chicago once it got in.

Ray Breyer
Elgin, IL


S hed <shed999@...>
 

I have a publication which publishes how many livestock by type went to which specific stock yard in 1916. It isn't 1946 or 1956 but it does shine the light on what was going on back in the day.

In 1916 there was a total shipment of 78,999,456 animals.
The top 5 stock yards are:
1) Union Stock Yards & Transit Co of Chicago IL with 16,729,043 animals or 21%
2) Union Stock Yards of Omaha NE with 7,722,032 animals or 10%
3) Kansas City Stock Yards Co of Kansas City MO with 7,068,575 animals or 9%
4) St Louis National Stock Yards Co of National City IL with 4,928,582 animals or 6%
5) St Paul Union Stock Yards Co of St Paul MN with 4,238,876 animals or 5%

The top five stock yards only handled 51% of the livestock in the US so saying that the Chicago packers handled 82% of the meat market is a bit of a stretch.

To further put this into context, I have a 1915 publication that lists all of the meat packers in the United States and Canada. In 1915, 41 out of 48 states had at least one meat packing plant. Chicago by itself had 30 meat packing plants out of 467 meat packing plants in the United States.

Granted Chicago had the greatest number of meat packing plants in one area but there was far more going on across the rest of the country and Canada.

- Steve Hedlund, Silver Lake WA



To: STMFC@...
From: @timboconnor
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:01:46 -0400
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Foreign Road Stock Cars







By the same token, Ray, I would not accept a single Chicago-based
reference to a statistic like that. 82% is a huge amount, in fact,
it is a ludicrous amount. Considering the state of such statistics
in 1900, how could anyone possibly know exactly how much meat was
being consumed in the US at that time, and where it all came from?

I found another Wikipedia article on meat packing that lists a number
of other major meatpacking cities in the US. But it doesn't mention
anything east of Chicago at all, nor anything west of Omaha, including
Denver.

There's no doubt meat packing in Chicago was a huge business, and I
think you are right that most cattle going to Chicago were processed
there. But whole "unit trains" of stock originated at other cities
like Sioux City, Omaha, etc -- That indicates to me that stock were
being redistributed from those locations.

Tim O'Connor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Stock_Yards

Everyone seems to forget about Chicago. Oh sure, people DO mention it, but in passing, as if it were a bit player or on another planet. Omaha? Please; chump change whern compared to CUS.

82% of all domestic meat production in the early 1900s is a HUGE amount. Besides opinions about "The Jungle" there's been very little historical research done on the yards, but I suspect that at certain times of the year, the yards had a hard time keeping up with the demand from all of the huge packing plant both around the yards and in the greater Chicago area in general.

Chicago's yards certainly were set up as a brokerage point; the photos of the pens themselves all back this up (each pen was leased by the yards and labeled with the broker's name and ID number). But from what little information I've been able to pick up here and there, those brokerages mostly served the nearby houses themselves. Very little stock ended up leaving Chicago once it got in.

Ray Breyer
Elgin, IL


Tim O'Connor
 

In 1916 there was a total shipment of 78,999,456 animals.
> - Steve Hedlund, Silver Lake WA

That's an interesting statistic. A cow yields 400-500 lb of beef
for human consumption, and in 1916 the average American consumed
less than 150 lb of beef. Say, 1/3 of a cow per person (a generous
estimate).

In 1916 there were around 100 million people in the US -- so let's
say they ate 35 million cows. If this is all true, then the average
cow was shipped more than once by rail. Of course "animals" probably
includes pigs and sheep, which are smaller. Nevertheless there must
have been a large amount of double- or triple-counting of animals
to arrive at the "total shipments" versus "total consumption" of
animals.

Tim O'Connor


S hed <shed999@...>
 

You would be wrong to think that cattle made up the majority of animals moved. Here is the breakdown:

"The 50 stockyards at which live stock are bought and sold (receipts of animals in 1916)"
Cattle = 14,365,900
Calves = 2,726,408
Sheep = 19,389,784
Hogs = 42,517,364
Total = 78,999,456

A big complaint back then was that 84% of the animals pass through the yards that the big 5 packers (Armour, Morris, Swift, Sulzberger & Sons and Cudahy in 1916) have an interest in. And pretty much they were able to control the prices of food so they could make big profits.

I'm not going into anymore detail about this because then we would be going beyond the topic of this group which is about freight cars. But I thought that this is an interesting tidbit to pass along.

I am very interested in livestock, stock cars and meat packing plants and belong to the Yahoo group that discusses those topics pretty well.

With me I've been doing considerable research on this so I could develop a realistic plan on how to route stock cars, meat reefers and by-product cars. This area of freight car research is very fascinating and complex especially when you talk about by-products such as fertilizer, tallow, hides, etc.

Plus when you have a stock yard you have freight cars coming in supplying everything that a stock yard needs such as hay and sand. Add a packing plant next to it then you have some really cool loads added to the mix.

- Steve Hedlund



To: STMFC@...
From: @timboconnor
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 18:32:54 -0400
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Foreign Road Stock Cars







In 1916 there was a total shipment of 78,999,456 animals.
- Steve Hedlund, Silver Lake WA
That's an interesting statistic. A cow yields 400-500 lb of beef
for human consumption, and in 1916 the average American consumed
less than 150 lb of beef. Say, 1/3 of a cow per person (a generous
estimate).

In 1916 there were around 100 million people in the US -- so let's
say they ate 35 million cows. If this is all true, then the average
cow was shipped more than once by rail. Of course "animals" probably
includes pigs and sheep, which are smaller. Nevertheless there must
have been a large amount of double- or triple-counting of animals
to arrive at the "total shipments" versus "total consumption" of
animals.

Tim O'Connor





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Ray Breyer
 

Hmm....I agree with Tim here: how many of those animal movements reflect the wide variety of things that could happen to the animals? Stock could be moved to feed lots, to brokers, to OTHER brokers, as breeding stock or work animals, and generally shuffled around multiple times before finally ending up in a can or string of sausages. Movement of animals doesn't equal animals processed.

And what of intermediary processing centers? While that 82% number sounds a bit suspect to me too, I wonder how it reflects dressed quarters that were re-shipped to smaller outlying processing centers for final processing? Or alternatively, how many dressed halves and quarters are inflating Chicago's numbers by coming in from other meat centers?

If these numbers are from 1916, where are the horse and mule totals? Chicago did a large amount of horse brokering, and most of those animals DID make it out of the pens alive.

All in all, this is a pretty interesting, and sort of underground topic that I'm glad is getting talked about! I've always thought that the Chicago or Omaha yards would make for great stand-alone layouts.


Ray Breyer
Elgin, IL

--- On Tue, 3/22/11, S hed <shed999@...> wrote:

From: S hed <shed999@...>
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Re: Foreign Road Stock Cars
To: stmfc@...
Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2011, 6:26 PM

You would be wrong to think that cattle made up the
majority of animals moved. Here is the breakdown:

"The 50 stockyards at which live stock are bought and sold
(receipts of animals in 1916)"
Cattle = 14,365,900
Calves = 2,726,408
Sheep = 19,389,784
Hogs = 42,517,364
Total = 78,999,456

A big complaint back then was that 84% of the animals pass
through the yards that the big 5 packers (Armour, Morris,
Swift, Sulzberger & Sons and Cudahy in 1916) have an
interest in. And pretty much they were able to control the
prices of food so they could make big profits.

I'm not going into anymore detail about this because then
we would be going beyond the topic of this group which is
about freight cars. But I thought that this is an
interesting tidbit to pass along.

I am very interested in livestock, stock cars and meat
packing plants and belong to the Yahoo group that discusses
those topics pretty well.

With me I've been doing considerable research on this so I
could develop a realistic plan on how to route stock cars,
meat reefers and by-product cars. This area of freight car
research is very fascinating and complex especially when you
talk about by-products such as fertilizer, tallow, hides,
etc.

Plus when you have a stock yard you have freight cars
coming in supplying everything that a stock yard needs such
as hay and sand. Add a packing plant next to it then you
have some really cool loads added to the mix.

- Steve Hedlund



To: STMFC@...
From: @timboconnor
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 18:32:54 -0400
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Foreign Road Stock Cars


 




In 1916 there was a total shipment of 78,999,456
animals.
- Steve Hedlund, Silver Lake WA
That's an interesting statistic. A cow yields 400-500 lb of
beef
for human consumption, and in 1916 the average American
consumed
less than 150 lb of beef. Say, 1/3 of a cow per person (a
generous
estimate).

In 1916 there were around 100 million people in the US --
so let's
say they ate 35 million cows. If this is all true, then the
average
cow was shipped more than once by rail. Of course "animals"
probably
includes pigs and sheep, which are smaller. Nevertheless
there must
have been a large amount of double- or triple-counting of
animals
to arrive at the "total shipments" versus "total
consumption" of
animals.

Tim O'Connor



   
        
          
 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links


    STMFC-fullfeatured@...



Tim O'Connor
 

Thanks, Steve!

Do you know if the proportions remained similar into the 1950's? Do you
know approximately the number of hogs in a carload? Cows in a carload?
I'm mostly wondering what percentage of carloads were hogs vs cattle.

Tim O'Connor


"The 50 stockyards at which live stock are bought and sold (receipts of animals in 1916)"
Cattle = 14,365,900
Calves = 2,726,408
Sheep = 19,389,784
Hogs = 42,517,364
Total = 78,999,456
- Steve Hedlund


Aley, Jeff A
 

Tim,

You really should come down to Cocoa Beach for Prototype Rails! Doug Harding has done several presentations on meat traffic, and they include the answers to your questions (and more!). He frequently updates the presentations (which I encourage), so if you come in the future, there's a good chance you'll get to see one of his presentations.

My copies of the handsouts are not accessable at the moment, or I'd answer your question directly.

Regards,

-Jeff


From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Tim O'Connor
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 5:08 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Foreign Road Stock Cars



Thanks, Steve!

Do you know if the proportions remained similar into the 1950's? Do you
know approximately the number of hogs in a carload? Cows in a carload?
I'm mostly wondering what percentage of carloads were hogs vs cattle.

Tim O'Connor

"The 50 stockyards at which live stock are bought and sold (receipts of animals in 1916)"
Cattle = 14,365,900
Calves = 2,726,408
Sheep = 19,389,784
Hogs = 42,517,364
Total = 78,999,456
- Steve Hedlund


devansprr
 

--- In STMFC@..., Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:


Thanks, Steve!

Do you know if the proportions remained similar into the 1950's? Do you
know approximately the number of hogs in a carload? Cows in a carload?
I'm mostly wondering what percentage of carloads were hogs vs cattle.

Tim O'Connor


"The 50 stockyards at which live stock are bought and sold (receipts of animals in 1916)"
Cattle = 14,365,900
Calves = 2,726,408
Sheep = 19,389,784
Hogs = 42,517,364
Total = 78,999,456
- Steve Hedlund
I have the 1941-1945 ICC Freight commodity statistics annual reports.

For 1941:

United States carloads originated:

Horses, mules, ponies and asses - 10,887
Cattle and calves - single deck - 305,555
Calves, doubled deck - 6,830
Sheep and goats, single deck - 20,691
Sheep and goats, double deck - 80,052
Hogs, single deck - 68,701
Hogs, double deck - 117,358
Animals, live, NOS - 149

Also:
Fresh meats, NOS - 268,042

What is interesting is looking at the ratio of live carloads vs. meat reefers. For western roads, live loads dominate. For eastern roads, meat reefers dominate. It gets more interesting in the mid-west - some of the smaller bridge lines that run Chicago and east have significant meat reefer traffic and almost no live stock, as did NKP. But several Central Eastern Region lines (PRR, NYC, B&O the biggies), were closer to having live shipment volumes similar to meat reefers.

There is a ton of data here that could be analyzed way too many ways, but it clearly indicates that lots of live stock, in 1941, made it east of the big mid-western stock yards (although not the majority of the meat consumed).

The quest for determining stock car distribution continues...

Dave Evans