LCL % total carloadings -- (data from Tim Gilbert, 10/12/2000)

1940 21.2% of 36.4 million (7.7 million) ( Note: 1940 was a depression year )
1950 11.3% of 38.2 million (4.3 million)
1959 6.8% of 31.0 million (2.1 million)

Note the absolute change -- 5.6 million fewer carloads of LCL in
1959 compared to 1940. This is a decline of 73% in 19 years, even
in the face of a US economy that was booming and over 100% larger
in 1959 compared to 1940.

From this LCL presentation, % carloadings in 1921 was 28% -- and rose
as a % of total traffic to 32% in the deep depression year of 1932 --
Here is the link http://ssandifer.com/Lay/Howard/Const/LCL/LCL.ppt

LCL traffic was more important to eastern & midwestern railroads that
served more densely populated regions and had shorter hauls. This made
those railroads especially susceptible to highway competition compared
to the far western railroads. Also the economic shift south and west
came, to some degree, at the expense of the eastern railroads.

Tim O'Connor

Tim

I note that this steep decline was during the advent and general growth of
TOFC. Do the sources you quote refer only to the freight car loading of
LCL.

It would be reasonable to surmise that much of that 'lost' LCL traffic was
in fact being carried as TOFC trailers so the RR's were effectively still
carrying a proportion of the lost LCL traffic, but in a different medium. Is
there any source of information as to how much of that was carried in RR
owned trailers and how much of it in private owner trailers.

Did the RR's report LCL loading via RR owned trailers as a separate entity
to the LCL in freight cars. If so, is there any known source of data that
would allow the two to be totalled to give an overall figure for LCL hauled
by RR's during the same period.

Barry Bennett
Coventry, England

I note that this steep decline was during the advent and general growth of
TOFC. Do the sources you quote refer only to the freight car loading of LCL.
Barry Bennett


Barry, TOFC was miniscule in the US in the 1950's, especially when
compared to LCL, and was limited to very few traffic lanes. So your idea
that LCL traffic moved to TOFC would only account for a tiny fraction
(less than 10%) of the old volume. The SP Overnight service in some traffic
lanes (LA-SF) shifted briefly to TOFC, but mostly SP and other roads
aggressively went after truckload business, and this is where TOFC was
ultimately very successful.

LCL "fell off a cliff" by 1960 -- the critical mass of volume was lost,
while infrastructure costs also grew -- a double whammy. Railroads would
have quit the LCL business much sooner IF THEY WERE ALLOWED -- but as
"common carriers" the ICC forced them to provide the service until long
after highway trucks proved themselves to be better and more efficient,
not to mention less prone to damage and theft.

Tim O'Connor