Charles, a big thanks back to you. I was looking at car request numbers by Oregon shippers however once the cars were loaded I was somewhat in the dark as to where from there. I did come across some records of cars waiting to use the load shifter at Laurel, MT yard of the NP and will get this info transcribed after our convention however again, it is nice to know the probable routing of the loads.
Thank you for the recent information you supplied. Jim Dick

--- In STMFC@..., "Aley, Jeff A" <Jeff.A.Aley@...> wrote:

Charles,

Very interesting analysis. Can you tell me more about Mr. Ed Ullman's analyses? I have copies of some of the 1% waybill data (copied from The Stanford U. Libraries). I'm interested to know what Mr. Ullman has done with it.

Hi Jeff,

I haven't been able to obtain any of the raw data yet, so some of this is guesswork about his (Dr. Ullman's) analysis. He was primarily an economic geographer, and his speciality was cartography. From the way he talks about data in his book I'm guessing he also had a bit of training in statistics. Here's what I think he did:

1) Categorize the commodities that were shipped into major groupings corresponding roughly to what we would today call commodity codes.
2) Categorize the origin and destination of the shipments by state.

or it could have been that the original data were presented this way and he just took advantage of that format...


3) Multiply the 1% sample by 100.
4) He used some kind of "fill in" rules for commodity flows that were suppressed by the ICCs "disclosure rule".
5) He compared data from several different years to see if there were trends that were distorting his "snapshots" of the data.
He compared his work against at least two other methodologies to see if there was a systematic bias.

But he was primarily a cartographer and like to make maps.

6) So he took all of the data, divided the total number of tons by 10,000 (because that was a convenient number) and plotted a series of maps with one dot in each state for every 10,000 tons of whatever commodity was shipped to that state.

There are over 100 of these maps in the book, and each one was hand-drawn. So I imagine several of his grad students were significant contributors ;)

7) As far as data analysis, the thesis of his book was that (in the 1950s) there was a "Core Area of U.S. and Canada", that the outlying areas (the "hinterlands") traded with the core area, and that the intensity of trade was governed by three principles which he proposed - Complementarity, Intervening Opportunity, and Transferability.

8) He was also a mild critic of the use of the "gravity model" to describe commodity flows, and tried to point out examples where his three principles fit the data better than the gravity model.

Sorry for the length of this, and it's certainly in the weeds and might be verging out of scope. I don't want to have to use my get out of jail free card yet... If you want to see any specific parts of the text or some of the maps drop me a note off-list.

Regards,

Charles Hostetler

Charles,

Very interesting analysis. Can you tell me more about Mr. Ed Ullman's analyses? I have copies of some of the 1% waybill data (copied from The Stanford U. Libraries). I'm interested to know what Mr. Ullman has done with it.

Regards,

-Jeff


From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Charles Hostetler
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2012 6:33 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Lumber Loads on Flat Cars and in Box Cars



--- In STMFC@...<mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>, "np328" <jcdworkingonthenp@...<mailto:jcdworkingonthenp@...>> wrote:

Regarding this conversation:
I cannot also help but think that there was -so much- lumber coming out of Oregon that no matter which side you tend to favor, there was plenty of board feet of timber to support you.

I was following this thread with mild interest until I saw Jim's comment. Then I got curious as to how much rail traffic equated to "-so much-". Fortunately I had finally received a copy of Ed Ullman's work (American Commodity Flow) that provided an approach to the answer based on his analysis of the ICC's 1 percent waybill sample (1948 through 1950). Those interested can find a state by state breakdown of the destinations of lumber shipments by rail from Oregon, Washington, Louisiana, and Mississippi at:

http://cnwmodeling.blogspot.com/2012/07/railroad-shipments-of-products-of.html

Now instead of thinking this might be a mildly interesting sideshow I'm thinking its an interesting part of the main story line. Thanks!

Regards,

Charles Hostetler

--- In STMFC@..., "np328" <jcdworkingonthenp@...> wrote:

Regarding this conversation:
I cannot also help but think that there was -so much- lumber coming out of Oregon that no matter which side you tend to favor, there was plenty of board feet of timber to support you.

I was following this thread with mild interest until I saw Jim's comment. Then I got curious as to how much rail traffic equated to "-so much-". Fortunately I had finally received a copy of Ed Ullman's work (American Commodity Flow) that provided an approach to the answer based on his analysis of the ICC's 1 percent waybill sample (1948 through 1950). Those interested can find a state by state breakdown of the destinations of lumber shipments by rail from Oregon, Washington, Louisiana, and Mississippi at:

http://cnwmodeling.blogspot.com/2012/07/railroad-shipments-of-products-of.html

Now instead of thinking this might be a mildly interesting sideshow I'm thinking its an interesting part of the main story line. Thanks!

Regards,

Charles Hostetler

Tony Thompson writes:

"...and in the early 1950s SP issued "equipment instructions" letters to yard clerks, agents and conductors to specify that 50-foot box cars, of ANY ownership, were to be moved to Eugene, Oregon for lumber loading unless in assigned service. SP was trying to fill the needs with both company and foreign cars, but as Jim describes, had a hard time meeting demand. This is worth pointing out to those modelers who assume that all lumber loads were on flat cars. My impression for the SP is that box car and flat car loadings were similar in number."

Here is a message I originally sent to the STMFC back on 2/24/2005:

"While beginning a look through my Fraley for autos & auto parts, I notice
three "lumber trains" heading east. The consists of these three trains are
interesting primarily because of the presence and lack thereof of SP cars.
The first train on Mar 3, '49, was 77 cars in length and contained 27 SP
cars carrying lumber. Of the 27, 25 were box cars and 2 were flats. Of the
25 box cars, 9 were 50 ft long. Two additional SP box cars were in the
train...40 fters carrying paper and something unreadable. There were 21 cars
of other RRs in the train carrying lumber. Thus, 35% of the train were SP
box cars, 32.5% were SP box cars carrying lumber and 62% were cars carrying
lumber. Compare this to a train on Apr 7, '49, which contained 98 cars. Of
these, 58 carried lumber and 4 were SP box cars. One more SP box car was in
the train giving SP box cars a 5% presence....closer to the national
average. The third train, on Apr 16, 1949, contained 93 cars. Of these, 34
were SP box cars, 32 carrying lumber. 27 other RR cars were also carrying
lumber. 36.6% of the cars were SP box cars, 34.4% were SP box cars carrying
carrying lumber. 27 other cars were also carrying lumber giving lumber
content cars 63.4% of the train. Trains 1 & 3 are remarkably similar in
content...as far as lumber and SP box cars is concerned. I am surprised at
the small number of flat cars carrying lumber."

Mike Brock

Jim Dick wrote:

In addition, regarding boxcar lumber loading, I have seen plenty and plenty more documentation on boxcar shortages and concerns. And many internal telegrams from NP traffic agents stating "if XYZ mill (in Oregon) cannot get more boxcars they will shut down for several days." This culminated into concerns - complaints from shippers - to letters from the Oregon Governers office - to where the SP was hauled before a congressional inquiry as to boxcar shortages. Several western railroads were in conference among themselves with the SP, before the SP testified.

This is certainly true, and in the early 1950s SP issued "equipment instructions" letters to yard clerks, agents and conductors to specify that 50-foot box cars, of ANY ownership, were to be moved to Eugene, Oregon for lumber loading unless in assigned service. SP was trying to fill the needs with both company and foreign cars, but as Jim describes, had a hard time meeting demand. This is worth pointing out to those modelers who assume that all lumber loads were on flat cars. My impression for the SP is that box car and flat car loadings were similar in number.

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

Hello all,
Random length lumber was (and still is) more common than many people realize. Softwood tongue&groove and shiplap used for subfloors and sheathing roofs and walls in old houses was often random length. And it wasn't always truly random; often it was trimmed to even lengths in 2' increments, 6-16' long, sold by the foot as mixed lots.

To the present day large lots of finished hardwood T&G flooring are sold as mixed random lengths. Lumber grading plays a part--a 6' clear board is worth more than an 8' board with a big knot in one end.

Peace, Rick Aylsworth

Regarding this conversation:
I cannot also help but think that there was -so much- lumber coming out of Oregon that no matter which side you tend to favor, there was plenty of board feet of timber to support you.

This massive amount of lumber traffic would have been
supported by housing for GI's coming home from WWII, then the Korean Conflict, then large stimulus spending to stave off an economic turndown by the then Republican administration.

Some things to add to this topic:
I have never in my research, seen evidence of flat car shortages out west in any documentation. However as Aaron Gjermundson stated earlier, I have seen quite a bit of photo documentation of lumber on flats and gons and I do believe that on the NP, much rough lumber came east on flats and gons and enough so that they could annex this to a separate train as I had posted prior.

In largely this same time frame of through the 1950's, the SP and NP had agreements where if the NP provided an empty boxcar via the Portland gateway, the SP agreed to return the load east via the same gateway, routing east via the NP.

I do believe that Guy Wilbur's documentation of wrapped lumber is solid however once it is in a boxcar, one concern is that unless you have a waybill of a boxcars load, it is impossible to see inside from a photo, on the other hand a flat car full of lumber is as plain as day as to what it is hauling.

In addition, regarding boxcar lumber loading, I have seen plenty and plenty more documentation on boxcar shortages and concerns. And many internal telegrams from NP traffic agents stating "if XYZ mill (in Oregon) cannot get more boxcars they will shut down for several days." This culminated into concerns - complaints from shippers - to letters from the Oregon Governers office - to where the SP was hauled before a congressional inquiry as to boxcar shortages. Several western railroads were in conference among themselves with the SP, before the SP testified.

Jim Dick - St. Paul

People please,

Understand this that the softwood sawmills wouldn't then and don't now
wrap green (not kiln dried or air dried) lumber. So it is very possible to see
wrapped and unwrapped lumber on a rail car end during the 50's, it may not
be that common but it did happen. Not all lumber was kiln dried and not
all builders required or even requested kiln dried lumber (or Air Dried).

Lumber that was kiln dried was what the industry called "patterns and
uppers" which was use for moldings, trim, paneling, flooring, industrials
(worked parts for windows, and the like) and exterior siding in our era. Not
that dried lumber wasn't used in framing but you have to remember that in the
during process the wood shrinks...

Green lumber was used as framing lumber, and during the first have of the
20th Century typical framing was called "balloon framing" different than
the standards that buildings are built to now. Green lumber was never and
issue expect for unseasoned Lodge Pole Pine, Southern Yellow Pine and Eastern
Spruce_Pine_Fir, most old timers would tell you that these species, not
properly dried, would tun into spaghetti and so they were dried, but once
dried what dimension should they match, their own, full sawn like the green
stock coming in from the west? So as an industry, collectively the ALS
(American Lumber Standards) was formed and grading rules were standardized for all
industries. No more "house grades" or "home grades".

In the last ten years the green lumber vestiges such as West Coast,
Arizona, Nevada, OK, MO, DE, NJ, NY, and the New England states all began to move
away from green lumber in favor of Kiln Dried but not entirely.

So when I think of lumber moving in boxcars I think of a time line not a
species or "finish" issue. Regardless of finish or pattern (Hill and Dale)
6-foot fence stock would not likely ever ship on a flat car or a gondola
for example. I think in available car types, value of the load, the ease of
loading. As labor cost began to rise in the post WW 2 era you have to think
of why you would hand stack a carload when you can but a Gerlinger straddle
buggy to move the stock from the sawmill to the kilns then on to the
planner or from the sawmill to the planner, and load the car with the new 6k
Towmotor (for boxcars) or 10K Gerlinger forklift for (flat cars or other car
types) you just bought that will eliminate the work of three men in hand
stacking box cars or three guys with a crane. One man perhaps two (union
rules when I was young said one driver one sticker man).

Hull Oaks here in Oregon still employees young backs to pull the green
chain to sort the lumber, but they use a Gerlinger Straddle buggy to move it
around the mill and to the loading bays, albeit they don't load rail cars at
the mill any longer.

Greg Martin


Eventually all things merge into one and a river runs through it.
Norman Maclean


ron.merrick@... writes:

"I have photos from ten years in the future, referenced from the cutoff
date of this list, showing dimensional lumber loosely stacked on flatcars,
and one case of a mixed wrapped and non-wrapped load, so wrapped bundles did
take a long time to take over the market.

Ron Merrick"

Richard Hendrickson wrote:

As usual, Guy has lots of documentation, so I stand corrected (at least partly). I would still maintain that large-scale shipment of plastic-wrapped packaged lumber was largely a '60s phenomenon . . .

I would agree. Guy Wilber's documentation cannot be disputed, but 1950s photography of open-car lumber loads shows VERY predominantly unpackaged and unwrapped loads. The existence of a standard for loading of wrapped loads does not equate to widespread use of same.

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

I have photos from ten years in the future, referenced from the cutoff date of this list, showing dimensional lumber loosely stacked on flatcars, and one case of a mixed wrapped and non-wrapped load, so wrapped bundles did take a long time to take over the market.

Ron Merrick


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

On Jun 29, 2012, at 1:11 PM, Guy Wilber wrote:

Richard Hendrickson wrote:

"Packaged lumber (i.e., even-sized stacks wrapped in plastic) wasn't
shipped on flat cars until the '60s and later."

<snip>

As usual, Guy has lots of documentation, so I stand corrected (at
least partly). I would still maintain that large-scale shipment of
plastic-wrapped packaged lumber was largely a '60s phenomenon, but
the concept of packaging lumber of uniform sizes obviously caught on
earlier than I had thought.

Richard Hendrickson



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

On Jun 29, 2012, at 1:11 PM, Guy Wilber wrote:

Richard Hendrickson wrote:

"Packaged lumber (i.e., even-sized stacks wrapped in plastic) wasn't
shipped on flat cars until the '60s and later."

The move towards "packaged" lumber was underway by the early 1950s
when most industry was fully realizing the benefits of mechanized
loading and unloading. The AAR's Special Committee on Lumber
Loading (appointed in 1942) developed Figure 6-C to cover open top
loads of packaged lumber during 1950 as shipments of this type
proved problematic prepared and shipped under the existing
provisions of Figure 6. Though not yet wrapped in plastic the units
were banded (or wired) and of uniform lengths and widths.

The renamed Special Committee On Forest Products introduced the new
figure and rule covering lumber packaged in lengths from ten to
sixteen foot long during the following year (1951). After numerous
authorized tests of cars originating from both Southern and
Northwestern territories Figure 6-C was issued by supplement in
early 1951. Figure 6-C would subsequently be re-titled Figure 9 (as
amended) and issued within Manual MD-3 on June 1, 1951.

Figure 9 was revised again in 1953 with minor changes designed to
reduce the amount of dunnage used in separating and blocking
packages. The revised figure and rule was issued within MD-3 on May
1, 1953. During 1955 lumber shippers requested Figure 9 be revised
to allow for the shipments of eight foot long "studs". Revised, the
new Figure and rules were issued by circular letter as a complete
new Manual MD-3 was to be issued in 1956. Revisions would continue
thru the 195os including figures for seven foot "studs" as well as
Figure 9-B covering the loading of packaged lumber on bulkhead
flats which was issued on January 24, 1957 (effective February 15,
1957).

As for the plastic wrapping of packaged lumber; the first mention
within the Forest Products Loading Committee report was during
1955: "The packages are protected from the elements with sheets of
polyethelene (sic) plastic..."

From an article within Railway Freight Traffic, June 1957:
"Shipment of lumber in packaged unit loads is rapidly gaining
acceptance among both shippers and receivers. Unitized steel-
strapped packages provide a convenient, economical method of
shipping and handling. Receivers' unloading costs are cut up to 90%."

Mr. H. L. Hewing, Superintendent of Interchange, Chicago Car
Interchange Bureau (June, 1958); "In my opinion, one of the most
noteworthy accomplishments made in the recent years in the movement
of cut lumber, rough or dressed, on open top railroad cars,
resulted from the lumber industries adoption of packaging their
product and subsequent unitizing of the packages."

As usual, Guy has lots of documentation, so I stand corrected (at
least partly). I would still maintain that large-scale shipment of
plastic-wrapped packaged lumber was largely a '60s phenomenon, but
the concept of packaging lumber of uniform sizes obviously caught on
earlier than I had thought.

Richard Hendrickson

Richard Hendrickson wrote:




"Packaged lumber (i.e., even-sized stacks wrapped in plastic) wasn't
shipped on flat cars until the '60s and later."



The move towards "packaged" lumber was underway by the early 1950s when most industry was fully realizing the benefits of mechanized loading and unloading. The AAR's Special Committee on Lumber Loading (appointed in 1942) developed Figure 6-C to cover open top loads of packaged lumber during 1950 as shipments of this type proved problematic prepared and shipped under the existing provisions of Figure 6. Though not yet wrapped in plastic the units were banded (or wired) and of uniform lengths and widths.


The renamed Special Committee On Forest Products introduced the new figure and rule covering lumber packaged in lengths from ten to sixteen foot long during the following year (1951). After numerous authorized tests of cars originating from both Southern and Northwestern territories Figure 6-C was issued by supplement in early 1951. Figure 6-C would subsequently be re-titled Figure 9 (as amended) and issued within Manual MD-3 on June 1, 1951.


Figure 9 was revised again in 1953 with minor changes designed to reduce the amount of dunnage used in separating and blocking packages. The revised figure and rule was issued within MD-3 on May 1, 1953. During 1955 lumber shippers requested Figure 9 be revised to allow for the shipments of eight foot long "studs". Revised, the new Figure and rules were issued by circular letter as a complete new Manual MD-3 was to be issued in 1956. Revisions would continue thru the 195os including figures for seven foot "studs" as well as Figure 9-B covering the loading of packaged lumber on bulkhead flats which was issued on January 24, 1957 (effective February 15, 1957).


As for the plastic wrapping of packaged lumber; the first mention within the Forest Products Loading Committee report was during 1955: "The packages are protected from the elements with sheets of polyethelene (sic) plastic..."


From an article within Railway Freight Traffic, June 1957: "Shipment of lumber in packaged unit loads is rapidly gaining acceptance among both shippers and receivers. Unitized steel-strapped packages provide a convenient, economical method of shipping and handling. Receivers' unloading costs are cut up to 90%."


Mr. H. L. Hewing, Superintendent of Interchange, Chicago Car Interchange Bureau (June, 1958); "In my opinion, one of the most noteworthy accomplishments made in the recent years in the movement of cut lumber, rough or dressed, on open top railroad cars, resulted from the lumber industries adoption of packaging their product and subsequent unitizing of the packages."


Guy Wilber
Sparks, Nevada








I have many photos
from the '50s and earlier showing lumber loads on flat cars, and in
almost all cases the stacks consist of more or less random lengths
with one or both ends irregular in the way that you describe."






Usually the lumber in the stacks had uniform width and height
dimensions, but not always. But again, that was either large size
lumber that required additional milling/cutting to spec. or the kind
of rough stuff that was used for concrete forms, retaining walls,
etc. Finished lumber for the construction trade was shipped in
closed cars.

Richard Hendrickson

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















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

Aaron Gjermundson wrote:

I've live in a couple "steam era" houses and can tell you that the structural lumber used in both of them was NOT finished. The floor joists in my current house, visible in my layout room are 2x10's and the rough circular saw marks are clearly visible. The wood grain is very course and splinters are guaranteed if you brush up against it in the wrong direction. Same for the original 2x4's in the walls. Also, the wood is a dark brown/red color with almost NO knots, not the blond knotty wood that you buy now. The corners are square and not rounded. The only place that I have found finished wood, is on the floors, and the 1x12's, 16's, and wider used on the roof, under the shingles.

My experience has been the same, in Pittsburgh, PA and here in Berkeley (my current house was built in 1926). It's certainly true that the wood is dark brown, but if you cut it (and this wood is darn hard by now), it is far lighter inside.

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

I've live in a couple "steam era" houses and can tell you that the structural lumber used in both of them was NOT finished. The floor joists in my current house, visible in my layout room are 2x10's and the rough circular saw marks are clearly visible. The wood grain is very course and splinters are guaranteed if you brush up against it in the wrong direction. Same for the original 2x4's in the walls. Also, the wood is a dark brown/red color with almost NO knots, not the blond knotty wood that you buy now. The corners are square and not rounded. The only place that I have found finished wood, is on the floors, and the 1x12's, 16's, and wider used on the roof, under the shingles.

I think that a darn good percentage of wood hauled in the steam era was rough cut regardless of size and length. Pictures of the NP "J" Manifest trains, east bound only to St. Paul, always show open gons and flat cars with lumber.

Aaron

Is some of this dependent upon changes in the lumber industry? Ie era
specific? As in moving from human handling to machine handling of each
stick. I've had the privilege to tour a few sawmill operations over the
years, but all after the cut off date of this list. One, the Hull Oak
operation in Oregon, was still handling each stick and stacking some random
length. But I seem to recall at a more modern mill that dimensional lumber,
ie 2x4's, 2x6's etc. primarily cut from softwood, is rough cut a little
longer than finished, ie a 8' is cut at 8'3" while going through the mill,
then all of the same length are bundled at the mill. The entire bundle is
cut to the finished 8' length. The ends are then painted/colored and
stamped. Then the bundle is wrapped and loaded on an open car for delivery.
This new means of bundling has reduced the loads of random length.



Perhaps the question to ask is when did bulkhead flat cars, and later center
beam cars, become the standard for moving dimensional softwood lumber? I
believe hardwoods are still cut and handled in random length loads. Mostly
because most hardwood is used in furniture, cabinetry and other finish
applications where knots and voids are not acceptable. Knots and voids are
cut out of sticks at the sawmill, leading to the variety of random length
lumber.



Doug Harding

www.iowacentralrr.org

--- In STMFC@..., "soolinehistory" <destorzek@...> wrote:
I get the impression from Tony and others that on the west coast dimensional lumber would often go on flatcars... this was a structural item, appearance was of secondary concern, and the transit time was short enough that the load wasn't likely to get rained on more than once or twice. Dennis

From what I have read, as said by Tony and Dennis, all true. I took a quick look at some paperwork last evening.

"Dressed" lumber went by boxcar. West Coast lumbermen did prefer the larger 50 foot double doors, no doubt for the efficency involved. Camas Prairie (NP/UP) lumber shippers seemed to be OK with 40 foot cars.
Larger dimensional lumber did go by flat and gon. On the NP this caused a problem when a semaphore was found knocked down on the western end of the mainline (about 1935). A 2x4 certainly would not have done this. It was later determined that a couple of pieces of a load of lumber on a flat had shifted due to the dynamic augment of the steam locomotive passing back thru the train.
There was enough of this larger dimensional lumber that it was reasonable to enough to classify this into a separate train. That lead to the start of the J manifest on the NP, an eastbound train comprised mostly of dimensional lumber on flats and gons, held to a 35 mph speed limit. After diesels took over the speed limit was later raised to 50 mph. I may have a wheel report of one of these somewhere I'll see if I can post. Jim Dick - St. Paul

Considering the amount of rain exposure a house under construction gets in intemperate climates before it is roofed, shipping exposure is negligible and the interior boards stay dry anyway. That's why a house is framed and enclosed for considerable time, often with heaters, to guarantee the framing drys out before finishes are installed.
Those TV shows where they build a house in a week terrify me. One was done here and it rained the entire time. I'm curious to know its condition a few years later.

CJ Riley

Bainbridge Island WA

--- In STMFC@..., Robert <cajonpass02@...> wrote:

This can depend on whether the load is "boards" a term often used to refer to wood that is 1" thick (nominal thickness), and "dimensional lumber" which usually refers to wood 2 or more inches in nominal thickness.

When I worked in the lumber business in the late '70's - early '80's we received boxcars of "boards" ranging from 1 x 4 to 1x12 in the same car with lengths and widths mixed. It often 2 men 2 days to unload those cars by hand.

Our "dimensional lumber" usually arrived in all-door boxcars or bulkhead flatcars in paper wrapped bunks (a 'technical term' for a standardized number of boards of the same thickness, width, and length banded together with metal strapping and often covered with paper or plastic wrappers to prevent weather damage. A car like that could unloaded by forklift in matter of hours (or less).

FYI: carloads of dimensional lumber are usually 'random lengths' with each bunk being all boards of the same length and the car composed of multiple bunks of varying lengths. Mills charge a premium for a carload of all the same length.

Just to add... A couple decades earlier, dimensional lumber was also usually shipped to the Midwest in boxcars, almost always as mixed loads. In those days the carloads typically went directly to the retail yards; there were no "distribution centers" to receive stock in bulk and further distribute it by truck. Each retail yard had a continual need to restock a variety of sizes, but little use for an entire carload of one size, and the mills accommodated this, loading a typical mix in the cars they then sold through brokers. The brokers knew what was in each car, and if a retail yard needed a car that was "heavy in 2x6's", the broker would do his best to find it.

I get the impression from Tony and others that on the west coast dimensional lumber would often go on flatcars... this was a structural item, appearance was of secondary concern, and the transit time was short enough that the load wasn't likely to get rained on more than once or twice.

However, if the load was random lengths all piled together, it is definitely rough lumber, either of low value, or feedstock for continued finishing operations elsewhere.

Dennis

Recently while looking over some paperwork on car supply, etc, I found much to support Richard's comment.
And if I could add, by the early 50's, the mills in Oregon (the largest lumber shippers in that time frame) wanted not only boxcars but good interior quality 50 foot double door cars, to the point of rejecting either rough interior cars or 40 footers, even when car supply was tight.
Currently researching and hoping to present at Naperville and perhaps Cocoa more on this in a broader sense.
Jim Dick - Roseville, MN