I believe this refers to a tariff provision to encourage the loading of otherwise empty western ownership reefers back to the west coast growing and loading areas. A shipper could use three western ownership refrigerator cars in lieu of one box car. I know this existed in the 1960's and 1970's and remember it during my brief railroad career (after this list's cutoff date); I imagine it did in the 1940's and 1950's. This provision has little to do with weight or cube. For example, W.F. Hall Printing Co in Chicago used to use this provision for shippping magazines westbound.

Charles Harmantas
Former employee
Chicago and North Western Railway

On Mar 24, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Charles wrote:

I believe this refers to a tariff provision to encourage the
loading of otherwise empty western ownership reefers back to the
west coast growing and loading areas. A shipper could use three
western ownership refrigerator cars in lieu of one box car. I know
this existed in the 1960's and 1970's and remember it during my
brief railroad career (after this list's cutoff date); I imagine it
did in the 1940's and 1950's. This provision has little to do with
weight or cube. For example, W.F. Hall Printing Co in Chicago used
to use this provision for shippping magazines westbound.

Charles Harmantas
Former employee
Chicago and North Western Railway

Charles is correct. At least at times in the steam era, both PFE and
SFRD had this 3:1 rule in effect for clean lading like magazines. It
obviously worked to the shipper's advantage, as well as helping the
refrigerator car companies get their cars back on a timely basis.

Richard Hendrickson

Charles said:

I believe this refers to a tariff provision to encourage the
loading of otherwise empty western ownership reefers back to the
west coast growing and loading areas.

Richard added:

Charles is correct. At least at times in the steam era, both PFE and
SFRD had this 3:1 rule in effect for clean lading like magazines. It
obviously worked to the shipper's advantage, as well as helping the
refrigerator car companies get their cars back on a timely basis.

So, for clarification... it did not take 3 reefers to haul the lading of
one boxcar, as Dave implied, but rather, the shipper could LOAD 3
reefers for the COST of 1 boxcar, meaning that it was cheaper to use
reefers to ship the same lading. Do I have this correct?

Regards
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL

=On Mar 24, 2011, at 7:19 PM, Bruce Smith wrote:

So, for clarification... it did not take 3 reefers to haul the
lading of
one boxcar, as Dave implied, but rather, the shipper could LOAD 3
reefers for the COST of 1 boxcar, meaning that it was cheaper to use
reefers to ship the same lading. Do I have this correct?

Yes.

Richard Hendrickson

Richard, could you clarify how reloading an empty reefer makes it
travel back faster to its owner? I'm just curious how that works.

I can understand the incentive to the shipper -- 3 carloads of
heavy magazines for the price of one box car does sound like a
tremendous bargain!

Tim O'Connor

Gets it pointed homewards, as opposed to being "confiscated" by another reefer company? Just guessing ...

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.

On Mar 25, 2011, at 2:35 AM, Tim O'Connor wrote:

Richard, could you clarify how reloading an empty reefer makes it
travel back faster to its owner? I'm just curious how that works.

Tim, the 3:1 deal on reefers vs. box cars applied only if the
shipment went directly to a consignee in the reefer owner's home
district. That got the car home faster than if it ran in the normal
reefer tide, and WAY faster than if an eastern or midwestern RR
captured it and kept in its own reefer service, something that wasn't
supposed to happen but which PFE and SFRD field reps chronically
complained about.

Richard Hendrickson

I recall seeing this same three for one deal in some paperwork recently and will try to find the paperwork and upload the scan.
Thinking further on this, we (this group) approach this the
same as a take one - get two free deal.
I think it is clearer to think of this as a rebate offered on
certain cars for specific commodities to certain locations (for the
reasons Richard listed).

Jim Dick - Roseville, MN

I think it is clearer to think of this as a rebate offered on
certain cars for specific commodities to certain locations (for the
reasons Richard listed). Jim Dick - Roseville, MN


I dunno. I'm not buying Richard's reasoning about this expediting the
return of empty reefers. Always follow the money to get to the truth of
things.

Most reefers received payments for mileage whether they were loaded
or empty. Since the flow of loaded reefers resulted in LOTS of empty
reefers on the east coast, and since it cost east coast carriers a
lot of money just to haul all those reefers back to their owners as
empty cars, they had a strong incentive to try and find backhauls so
they could earn some revenue for eastern carriers on the way home.

Yes, SFRD and PFE and any other reefer owners who participated probably
agreed to this as long as the reefers were billed back to the owner's
rails. I doubt the normal AAR rules "return to home district OR to an
adjacent district" would suffice since that could result in extremely
long delays in returning a reefer to owner rails. The 3:1 ratio must
have been very attractive to shippers, thus ensuring that a higher
percentage of returning reefers were loaded. But I wonder how many
shippers could take advantage of the rate, since it required them to
ship three carloads at a time, on one waybill.

Tim O'Connor

Shipper calls freight agent, asking for cars. He has 4000 cu ft or so of crated somethings weighing 20 to 40 tons and wants a boxcar. Agent offers him this deal, since otherwise he'd have to send two 40' cars.

Shipper now ought to be happy - he's had three cars shoved on his siding but he pays the rate equal to one carload. Other than the time involved to load and brace three small cars instead of one or two larger ones, what has he lost?

His other choice was to wait until the agent can find him a 50' car, which were not exactly plentiful in the era we're talking about.

The guy who has 2000 cu ft of stuff, weighing 50 tons, might not get this offer unless the yard was full of mty reefers.

Ron Merrick

Tim,

Just from experience in the rail world of today... not then... however; the reality today is that loads move with much more priority than empties.

Greg Martin

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

...The 3:1 ratio must
have been very attractive to shippers, thus ensuring that a higher
percentage of returning reefers were loaded. But I wonder how many
shippers could take advantage of the rate, since it required them to
ship three carloads at a time, on one waybill.

Tim O'Connor

I don't think we have all the facts. I suspect that the tariff rate for shipping was the same... so the shipper paid X to ship 50 tons, whether he loaded it in one car, or three.

I'm also aware that this isn't unique; certain commodity tariffs had a provision that allowed the railroad to substitute two reefers for one boxcar.

On the face of it, it's detrimental to the shipper, not advantageous... he has to screw around loading two cars, through narrower than normal doors, then do twice as much paperwork.

The only place where there was clearly an advantage for the shipper was if he was shipping to multiple customers, using the partial unloading provisions built into most tariffs. Under these, the shipper would load freight consigned to two or three different customers in the same car, filling the car to secure the carload rate. the car was then routed to the first customer, who unloaded his share, and the car was re-sealed, and sent to the second customer. I believe this could be done a maximum of twice, so one car could serve three customers. A canny shipper could take advantage of these two or three cars per carload deals and just load the portion for each customer in a separate reefer, seal them, and send them on their way and not have to worry about the potential for pilferage and complaints about shortages that could result from the intermediate stops. This seems to be ideal for magazine publishers, who could serve smaller distributors directly without the delay that multiple stops caused. Coincidentally, magazines were the ideal back-haul load for reefers, since the bundles were small enough to easily move through the doors and not likely to damage the cars.

Dennis

I agree with Dennis, I don't think we have all of the facts. As far as I know the 3:1 ratio started in WW2 with Service Order No. 104 (Jan. 19, 1943). This was designed to "reduce the excess movement of empty refrigerator cars to destinations in five western states by using them for freight usually loaded in box cars." Given that it was wartime I doubt that money had too much to do with it. Cross-haul of empty boxcars east and empty reefers west added to already high levels of traffic which they were trying to manage. In other words why not substitute reefers for some westbound loads? The original order applied to PFE and SFRD. The states were: Calif., Idaho, Ariz., Nevada, and Utah. The source for this info is Freight Car Distribution by Coughlin (p.255 mostly). FHP (Frank H. Peacock)
To: STMFC@...
From: destorzek@...
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 19:38:46 +0000
Subject: [STMFC] Re: 3:1 Reefers to Box Cars ratio
































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

...The 3:1 ratio must

have been very attractive to shippers, thus ensuring that a higher

percentage of returning reefers were loaded. But I wonder how many

shippers could take advantage of the rate, since it required them to

ship three carloads at a time, on one waybill.

Tim O'Connor

I don't think we have all the facts. I suspect that the tariff rate for shipping was the same... so the shipper paid X to ship 50 tons, whether he loaded it in one car, or three.



I'm also aware that this isn't unique; certain commodity tariffs had a provision that allowed the railroad to substitute two reefers for one boxcar.



On the face of it, it's detrimental to the shipper, not advantageous... he has to screw around loading two cars, through narrower than normal doors, then do twice as much paperwork.



The only place where there was clearly an advantage for the shipper was if he was shipping to multiple customers, using the partial unloading provisions built into most tariffs. Under these, the shipper would load freight consigned to two or three different customers in the same car, filling the car to secure the carload rate. the car was then routed to the first customer, who unloaded his share, and the car was re-sealed, and sent to the second customer. I believe this could be done a maximum of twice, so one car could serve three customers. A canny shipper could take advantage of these two or three cars per carload deals and just load the portion for each customer in a separate reefer, seal them, and send them on their way and not have to worry about the potential for pilferage and complaints about shortages that could result from the intermediate stops. This seems to be ideal for magazine publishers, who could serve smaller distributors directly without the delay that multiple stops caused. Coincidentally, magazines were the ideal back-haul load for reefers, since the bundles were small enough to easily move through the doors and not likely to damage the cars.



Dennis


















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

On Mar 25, 2011, at 2:12 PM, FRANK PEACOCK wrote:

I agree with Dennis, I don't think we have all of the facts. As
far as I know the 3:1 ratio started in WW2 with Service Order No.
104 (Jan. 19, 1943). This was designed to "reduce the excess
movement of empty refrigerator cars to destinations in five western
states by using them for freight usually loaded in box cars."
Given that it was wartime I doubt that money had too much to do
with it. Cross-haul of empty boxcars east and empty reefers west
added to already high levels of traffic which they were trying to
manage. In other words why not substitute reefers for some
westbound loads? The original order applied to PFE and SFRD. The
states were: Calif., Idaho, Ariz., Nevada, and Utah. The source for
this info is Freight Car Distribution by Coughlin (p.255 mostly).
FHP (Frank H. Peacock)

The Santa Fe documents I have seen indicate that this practice
continued at least through 1947 and into 1948 (perhaps as part of the
more general regulations with regard to reefer pooling). I believe
the 3:1 rule was also in effect in later years for bulk shipments of
holiday mail by the USPS, though I haven't seen any documentation for
that. At any rate, throughout much of the 1950s, the Santa Fe ran
westbound mail trains during the holiday season, usually as 2nd or
3rd 7, which were solid SFRD reefers.

Richard Hendrickson

Greg, ALL of the rules have changed over the last 50 years. I'm sure
that empties moved with lower priority than loads; but what percentage
of empty reefers moved under incentive backhaul rates? My guess: a very
small percentage. Net affect on average car velocity: negligible.

Tim O'Connor

--- In STMFC@..., Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@...> wrote:

On Mar 25, 2011, at 2:12 PM, FRANK PEACOCK wrote:

I agree with Dennis, I don't think we have all of the facts. As
far as I know the 3:1 ratio started in WW2 with Service Order No.
104 (Jan. 19, 1943). This was designed to "reduce the excess
movement of empty refrigerator cars to destinations in five western
states by using them for freight usually loaded in box cars."
Given that it was wartime I doubt that money had too much to do
with it. Cross-haul of empty boxcars east and empty reefers west
added to already high levels of traffic which they were trying to
manage. In other words why not substitute reefers for some
westbound loads? The original order applied to PFE and SFRD. The
states were: Calif., Idaho, Ariz., Nevada, and Utah. The source for
this info is Freight Car Distribution by Coughlin (p.255 mostly).
FHP (Frank H. Peacock)

The Santa Fe documents I have seen indicate that this practice
continued at least through 1947 and into 1948 (perhaps as part of the
more general regulations with regard to reefer pooling). I believe
the 3:1 rule was also in effect in later years for bulk shipments of
holiday mail by the USPS, though I haven't seen any documentation for
that. At any rate, throughout much of the 1950s, the Santa Fe ran
westbound mail trains during the holiday season, usually as 2nd or
3rd 7, which were solid SFRD reefers.

Richard Hendrickson

The source of my inquiry that started this thread (and I greatly appreciate all the info provided so far), is the May 1943 Delano photo of the Milwaukee Road's Bensenville yard - it has one SFRD reefer triplet in it, but several Union RTL triplets (with the Milwaukee road herald).

I wonder if the order may have been expanded later that year to other fleets, although I wonder where URTX would be considered "home" - the Pacific Northwest?

I am not familiar with a possible WWII empty boxcar imbalance in the midwest and west. I know there were LOTS of MTY boxcars in the east coast that could be loaded for western destinations, so there wasn't much of an XM shortage to entice eastern roads to load reefers instead of boxcars.

Perhaps the shortage of empties was more acute in the Midwest? I think the region was a significant exporter of both war material and food - towards both coasts, although I think by volume a lot more exports departed the east coast than the west coast during the war - at least through early '44. This would require a net flow of MTY's into the midwest, with mostly loads out of the midwest.

Perhaps this was simply a way for mid-western producers to compensate for dearth of MTY boxcars? It is curious that only SFRD and PFE are listed - granted the two biggest fleets, but perhaps also they were the top two car owners accumulating MTY car miles? (I can just see someone in the DC based Office of Defense Transportation analyzing MTY car mileage by reporting mark, and knowing there was a shortage of box cars, decides to find a way to utilize the two biggest MTY fleet mileage accumulators?)

The other possibility is that perhaps this was simply a way to add general merchandise capacity by latching on to the two largest reefer fleets. One thing I plan to do is look at the WWII ICC reports and see if there was a significant drop in reefer carloads during the war - food for domestic consumption was being rationed, and I would think food shipments for overseas did not require reefers to the ports. Perhaps fresh food ton-miles dropped significantly during the war.

Certainly using 3 reefers in place of one box car would satisfy the need for low density loads and increase the number of 50T cars available for heavier war loads (I am thinking bombs/ammo, finished steel components that would be assembled at other plants into vehicles/tanks, etc. These high density metal loads can easily load a 50 ton car without hitting even a quarter of the car's cube - a pile of solid steel 40x8 feet and less than 9 inches high is 50 tons!)

This makes for an interesting thread for the WWII modelers among us - thanks to all for the help. I am still wondering if I should model WB reefer triplets on the PRR main in Pennsylvania - looks like more research is required. Wish they had let people take pictures of the RR's during WWII - WWII modeling would be so much easier ;-)

Dave Evans

Did the three cars have to go to the same destination?

KL

For the first nine months of 1943, 1,250,594 refrigerator cars were loaded of these 98,817 were loaded westbound on the 3 for 1 plan for PFE and SFRD cars.

In many cases the tariff provisions allowed loading to multiple destinations on the 3 for 1 plan. From a car movement standpoint they were moved to the destinations like any other car. From an accounting standpoint the shipper was only charged as if he only was shipping one car.

After the war years the same provision, at 2 to 1, was allowed on 40 ft to 46 ft flat cars when substituted for 53 ft flatcars used for loading farm implements.

Dan Holbrook

--- In STMFC@..., "Dave Evans" <devans1@...> wrote:

The other possibility is that perhaps this was simply a way to add general merchandise capacity by latching on to the two largest reefer fleets. One thing I plan to do is look at the WWII ICC reports and see if there was a significant drop in reefer carloads during the war - food for domestic consumption was being rationed, and I would think food shipments for overseas did not require reefers to the ports. Perhaps fresh food ton-miles dropped significantly during the war.

Update:

Hate to reply to myself, but I did a quick scan of the 1941 and 1944 ICC reports for cars loaded - the commodity's that would likely require produce reefers were nearly all higher in 1944 than 1941, and fresh meat carloads were also higher (as were stock car loads). So reefer utilization must have been higher in 1944, since I think a relatively small percentage of cars were added to the reefer fleet during the war.

Dave Evans

I asked my Dad about this one. He was a traffic clerk then manager in the Chicago region from the late 50s into the 80s. Tariffs were a big part of his job. Below is what he had to say about the 3:1 rule. It is interesting that his perception was the RRs didn't like it. I suppose the produce shippers and those who got the 3:1 deal were the happy ones.

Bob Sterner
St. Paul, MN

Hi;

Yes I am familiar with that rule. They referred to it as the three for one rule. We never took advantage of it because our Boss was a former RR guy and there were a lot of problems with the RR operations when trying to use it. If you had big and bulky products like furniture it really was a good deal.

Dad