Impending Cudahy meat reefers.


Don Valentine <riverman_vt@...>
 

Hi folks,
 
     Some have asked about colors and such of the special run of Cudahy meat reefers New England Rail is having done by Atlas so I'll respond to everyone here. The car sides are reefer yellow with a brown roof and ends. Lettering on the sides is black while that on the ends is white.  A pkhoto of teh prototype can be found in Doug Harding's photo section. When first introduced in 2003 Atlas offered the car in two different Cudahy billboard paint designs but have never gone any further with Cudahy paint. Thus this will be the first time the car has been offered in the standard Cudahy post WW II paint design, which was simply the colors stated and simple lettering in black on the car sides much like most other packers in the postwar years. The car, as least when first constructed in 1925, was built specifically for Cudahy and is a standout with its 36 ft. length and the odd use of only four door hinges per side rather than the usual six. In twenty years of researching meat reefers I have never found any other packer that used these cars. Thus I wonder if any of the other paint and lettering designs Atlas has used on this model are really accurate. I'd be interested in learning of other possible users of this same basic car with the four hinges per side. 
 
      In any case, thank you to those of you who have taken advantage of our pre-production pricing, The deposit has been sent to Atlas, a sample car is expected about 1 August and the completed cars are expected in November. For those who still wish to take advantage of our pre-production pricing the cost is $34 per car plus $5 shipping for one car of $8 for two for all orders postmarked not later than 31 May. Thereafter the cars will be $45 each. Two car numbers are being produced, with one car number ending with a "3" and the other a "6" so that they might be easily changed to an "8" or a "0" for those who want more than two car numbers.  
 
    Again, my thanks to those who have already ordered their Cudahy meat reefer(s).
 
Cordially, Don Valentine


MDelvec952
 




-----Original Message-----
From: Don Valentine riverman_vt@... [STMFC]
To: STMFC
Sent: Wed, May 21, 2014 8:33 pm
Subject: [STMFC] Impending Cudahy meat reefers.

 
Hi folks,
 
     Some have asked about colors and such of the special run of Cudahy meat reefers New England Rail is having done by Atlas so I'll respond to everyone here. The car sides are reefer yellow with a brown roof and ends. Lettering on the sides is black while that on the ends is white.  A pkhoto of teh prototype can be found in Doug Harding's photo section. When first introduced in 2003 Atlas offered the car in two different Cudahy billboard paint designs but have never gone any further with Cudahy paint. Thus this will be the first time the car has been offered in the standard Cudahy post WW II paint design, which was simply the colors stated and simple lettering in black on the car sides much like most other packers in the postwar years. The car, as least when first constructed in 1925, was built specifically for Cudahy and is a standout with its 36 ft. length and the odd use of only four door hinges per side rather than the usual six. In twenty years of researching meat reefers I have never found any other packer that used these cars. Thus I wonder if any of the other paint and lettering designs Atlas has used on this model are really accurate. I'd be interested in learning of other possible users of this same basic car with the four hinges per side. 
 
      In any case, thank you to those of you who have taken advantage of our pre-production pricing, The deposit has been sent to Atlas, a sample car is expected about 1 August and the completed cars are expected in November. For those who still wish to take advantage of our pre-production pricing the cost is $34 per car plus $5 shipping for one car of $8 for two for all orders postmarked not later than 31 May. Thereafter the cars will be $45 each. Two car numbers are being produced, with one car number ending with a "3" and the other a "6" so that they might be easily changed to an "8" or a "0" for those who want more than two car numbers.  
 
    Again, my thanks to those who have already ordered their Cudahy meat reefer(s).
 
Cordially, Don Valentine


Nelson Moyer <ku0a@...>
 

Don,

 

I have Gene Green’s book, Refrigerator Car Color Guide published by Morning Sun, and it contains color photos of five Cudahy meet reefers taken between 1957-1961. These are all post-war cars with road numbers 5802, 6057, 6067, 6270, and 6766. All of these cars have six door hinges per side. I’ve never seen a color photo of a prototype Cudahy reefer with four door hinges per side. Could you share some with the group?

 

Nelson Moyer

 

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...]
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 3:09 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Impending Cudahy meat reefers.

 

 

Hi folks,

 

     Some have asked about colors and such of the special run of Cudahy meat reefers New England Rail is having done by Atlas so I'll respond to everyone here. The car sides are reefer yellow with a brown roof and ends. Lettering on the sides is black while that on the ends is white.  A pkhoto of teh prototype can be found in Doug Harding's photo section. When first introduced in 2003 Atlas offered the car in two different Cudahy billboard paint designs but have never gone any further with Cudahy paint. Thus this will be the first time the car has been offered in the standard Cudahy post WW II paint design, which was simply the colors stated and simple lettering in black on the car sides much like most other packers in the postwar years. The car, as least when first constructed in 1925, was built specifically for Cudahy and is a standout with its 36 ft. length and the odd use of only four door hinges per side rather than the usual six. In twenty years of researching meat reefers I have never found any other packer that used these cars. Thus I wonder if any of the other paint and lettering designs Atlas has used on this model are really accurate. I'd be interested in learning of other possible users of this same basic car with the four hinges per side. 

 

      In any case, thank you to those of you who have taken advantage of our pre-production pricing, The deposit has been sent to Atlas, a sample car is expected about 1 August and the completed cars are expected in November. For those who still wish to take advantage of our pre-production pricing the cost is $34 per car plus $5 shipping for one car of $8 for two for all orders postmarked not later than 31 May. Thereafter the cars will be $45 each. Two car numbers are being produced, with one car number ending with a "3" and the other a "6" so that they might be easily changed to an "8" or a "0" for those who want more than two car numbers.  

 

    Again, my thanks to those who have already ordered their Cudahy meat reefer(s).

 

Cordially, Don Valentine

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4592 / Virus Database: 3950/7537 - Release Date: 05/21/14


Tony Thompson
 

Don Valentine wrote:

 The car, as least when first constructed in 1925, was built specifically for Cudahy and is a standout with its 36 ft. length and the odd use of only four door hinges per side rather than the usual six. In twenty years of researching meat reefers I have never found any other packer that used these cars. 

      Then you should look into Richard Hendrickson and Ed Kaminski's book on _Billboard Refrigerator Cars_ and you will find pages and pages of four-hinge cars in the chapter devoted to North American (NADX) cars.

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, tony@...
Publishers of books on railroad history





Richard Hendrickson
 

On May 21, 2014, at 1:08 PM, Don Valentine riverman_vt@... [STMFC] <STMFC@...> wrote:

Hi folks,
  Some have asked about colors and such of the special run of Cudahy meat reefers New England Rail is having done by Atlas so I'll respond to everyone here. The car sides are reefer yellow with a brown roof and ends. Lettering on the sides is black while that on the ends is white.  A pkhoto of teh prototype can be found in Doug Harding's photo section. When first introduced in 2003 Atlas offered the car in two different Cudahy billboard paint designs but have never gone any further with Cudahy paint. Thus this will be the first time the car has been offered in the standard Cudahy post WW II paint design, which was simply the colors stated and simple lettering in black on the car sides much like most other packers in the postwar years. The car, as least when first constructed in 1925, was built specifically for Cudahy and is a standout with its 36 ft. length and the odd use of only four door hinges per side rather than the usual six. In twenty years of researching meat reefers I have never found any other packer that used these cars. Thus I wonder if any of the other paint and lettering designs Atlas has used on this model are really accurate. I'd be interested in learning of other possible users of this same basic car with the four hinges per side.

Don, obviously your research didn’t extend to the Billboard Refrigerator Car book by myself and Ed Kaminski, published by (and still available from) Signature Press.  In that book there are three photos of Cudahy four hinge-per-side 36’ reefers and MANY photos - far too many to list - of similar cars, both 36’ and 40’, owned by other car lines.  In the book, it is pointed out that these cars ,with four large hinges per side instead of the more usual six, were built by the hundreds to standard designs of the Pressed Steel Car Co.

Richard Hendrickson



Douglas Harding
 

Everyone, the photo Don is using to verify the P/L scheme for the Cudahy reefer was taken by the Fairmont Railway Motors Company, probably to demonstrate their Tri-Sorb rubber spring block. They offered the Tri-Sorb beginning in 1935 to 1938, when Goodyear took over the spring block. As a company photo I figure it was taken in 1935. So the scheme is a pre WWII P/L scheme, but after the 1934 ICC ban on billboard lettering on freight cars. No doubt this is the standard P/L scheme Cudahy used to comply with the new law, replacing the Dutch Cleanser and other Cudahy paint schemes, which lasted well past the date of this list.

 

Doug Harding

www.iowacentralrr.org

 


caboose9792@aol.com <caboose9792@...>
 

As long as the car was owned and used by cudahy why would the "ban" effect them? Sure the issue with the simple paint had more to do with the eccononic situation in the 1930's?

mark rickert
Sent with Verizon Mobile Email

---Original Message---
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 5/21/2014 8:43 pm
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Impending Cudahy meat reefers.

Everyone, the photo Don is using to verify the P/L scheme for the Cudahyreefer was taken by the Fairmont Railway Motors Company, probably todemonstrate their Tri-Sorb rubber spring block. They offered the Tri-Sorbbeginning in 1935 to 1938, when Goodyear took over the spring block. As acompany photo I figure it was taken in 1935. So the scheme is a pre WWII P/Lscheme, but after the 1934 ICC ban on billboard lettering on freight cars.No doubt this is the standard P/L scheme Cudahy used to comply with the newlaw, replacing the Dutch Cleanser and other Cudahy paint schemes, whichlasted well past the date of this list. Doug Hardingwww.iowacentralrr.org


Tony Thompson
 

mark rickert wrote:

As long as the car was owned and used by cudahy why would the "ban" effect them? Sure the issue with the simple paint had more to do with the eccononic situation in the 1930's?

     Mark, I can see you are entirely unaware of the history. In fact, the ICC undertook to regulate the use of privately owned reefers, one VERY minor part of which was the advertising provided gratis to lessees, which was banned on new or repainted cars after 1934 and on all cars in service after 1938. It had nothing whatever to do with the Depression itself.

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, tony@...
Publishers of books on railroad history





clipper841@att.net <clipper841@...>
 

sorry to ease drop:
but there was an exception to the rule, it being, that as long  as the owner was the actual shipper,
then the billboard, of course,was allowed, however the car could not be used by anyone else,
 the the shipper became responsible for the return of the freight car charges,
which meant, in essence, that the shipper had to pay the rr's for the return freight , charges, which
quickly became cost prohibited, that's why very few cars after 1934, had billboard, simply because
the shipper's couldn't afford to pay the railroads the return charges, check out billboard
by kaminski, or mm, had an explanation also, in the late 80's/early 90's
mel perry

On May 21, 2014, at 11:55 PM, 'caboose9792@...' caboose9792@... [STMFC] wrote:

 

As long as the car was owned and used by cudahy why would the "ban" effect them? Sure the issue with the simple paint had more to do with the eccononic situation in the 1930's?

mark rickert
Sent with Verizon Mobile Email

---Original Message---
From: STMFC@...
Sent: 5/21/2014 8:43 pm
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Impending Cudahy meat reefers.

Everyone, the photo Don is using to verify the P/L scheme for the Cudahyreefer was taken by the Fairmont Railway Motors Company, probably todemonstrate their Tri-Sorb rubber spring block. They offered the Tri-Sorbbeginning in 1935 to 1938, when Goodyear took over the spring block. As acompany photo I figure it was taken in 1935. So the scheme is a pre WWII P/Lscheme, but after the 1934 ICC ban on billboard lettering on freight cars.No doubt this is the standard P/L scheme Cudahy used to comply with the newlaw, replacing the Dutch Cleanser and other Cudahy paint schemes, whichlasted well past the date of this list. Doug Hardingwww.iowacentralrr.org



caboose9792@aol.com <caboose9792@...>
 

Tony, i sujest you actualy read the ruling rather than repeating roundhouse rumor. Mel is corect the prohibatation only appled to some situations and was not a blanket ban. Cars such as meat reefers returned empty to the leasor so there was no conflict.

However, starting in 1929 the national economic downturn made extravagant expendatures a luxery. Ironicly there is a billboard tankcar accross the street from my office, someone call the railfan police!

mark rickert (who says look on tracks 42 & 43 at irm for some post ruling examples)
Sent with Verizon Mobile Email

---Original Message---
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 5/22/2014 2:22 am
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Impending Cudahy meat reefers.

mark rickert wrote:> As long as the car was owned and used by cudahy why would the "ban" effect them? Sure the issue with the simple paint had more to do with the eccononic situation in the 1930's?> Mark, I can see you are entirely unaware of the history. In fact, the ICC undertook to regulate the use of privately owned reefers, one VERY minor part of which was the advertising provided gratis to lessees, which was banned on new or repainted cars after 1934 and on all cars in service after 1938. It had nothing whatever to do with the Depression itself.Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, tony@signaturepress.comPublishers of books on railroad history


Dennis Storzek
 

I was just involved in this discussion on another forum a couple months ago, and what I wrote there is equally applicable here:

I think you are missing the point. As the regulations stood as of 1934, the railroad was obligated to supply a car for the shipper's load. If the shipper supplied the car (either via direct ownership or through long term lease) the railroad was obligated to pay the shipper a mileage rate for it's use. So, the railroads were paying for the privilege of hauling the shipper's ads around.

But as I understand it, this wasn't the underlying issue. The railroads didn't like the private lease fleets, because they were obligated to maintain a fleet of cars which were only used during peak traffic flows, meanwhile they were obligated to pay mileage to use the shipper's cars while their own fleet sat. So, they were trying all and any tactic to discourage the use of private cars; the advertising issue was just one of many.

Further, the ICC didn't prohibit the shipper from painting whatever they wanted on their cars, they were, after all, the shipper's property. The ICC simply ruled that the railroads did not have to accept a load in a car that carried advertising, which, of course, had exactly the same effect. It had an even more drastic effect, in that what shipper was going to risk painting their logo on the car (which was still allowable) and have a railroad refuse the car? Sure, the shipper could then complain to the ICC, but that would take months, while the shipper's load rotted in his car, possibly on an interchange track hundreds of miles from the shipper's plant. The end result was that over the course of four years, the reefer fleet became very plain looking indeed.

While as far as I know the same regulation was still in effect until the whole regulatory structure was revised by the Staggers Act of 1980, after WWII ended it appears that some common sense tempered the railroad's attitude, and colorful business logos became common once again, but never again did a business paint a whole list of their products on their freightcars.

Dennis Storzek


Richard Hendrickson
 

On May 22, 2014, at 2:30 AM, 'caboose9792@...' caboose9792@... [STMFC] <STMFC@...> wrote:

Tony, i sujest you actualy read the ruling rather than repeating roundhouse rumor. Mel is corect the prohibatation only appled to some situations and was not a blanket ban. Cars such as meat reefers returned empty to the leasor so there was no conflict. 

However, starting in 1929 the national economic downturn made extravagant expendatures a luxery. Ironicly there is a billboard tankcar accross the street from my office, someone call the railfan police!

Roundhouse rumor?  Aside from having a malfunctioning spell checker and a sizable chip on his shoulder, Mark Rickert simply doesn’t know wheat he’s talking about here.  Tony has not only read the entire ICC report but included the Railway Age summary of that report, which quotes the resultant rules verbatim, as Appendix 2 in the book on Billboard Refrigerator Cars written by myself and Ed Kaminski and published by Signature Press, the publishing house in which Tony is a partner.  The practical effect of that ruling was exactly as described by Dennis Storzek.  With regard to the disappearance of billboard advertising on refrigerator cars, the economic effects of the Great Depression were entirely irrelevant.  This has all been extensively documented and the facts are readily available to anyone with even the most modest research skills, which Mark apparently either lacks or chooses not to employ. 

Richard Hendrickson


Chuck Cover
 

List,

I thought that attacks on individuals were not allowed. I am new to this group and so far I am not impressed at the tone of the discussions.

Chuck Cover
Santa Fe, NM


Richard Hendrickson
 

On May 22, 2014, at 7:17 AM, destorzek@... [STMFC] <STMFC@...> wrote:

I was just involved in this discussion on another forum a couple months ago, and what I wrote there is equally applicable here:

I think you are missing the point. As the regulations stood as of 1934, the railroad was obligated to supply a car for the shipper's load. If the shipper supplied the car (either via direct ownership or through long term lease) the railroad was obligated to pay the shipper a mileage rate for it's use. So, the railroads were paying for the privilege of hauling the shipper's ads around.

But as I understand it, this wasn't the underlying issue. The railroads didn't like the private lease fleets, because they were obligated to maintain a fleet of cars which were only used during peak traffic flows, meanwhile they were obligated to pay mileage to use the shipper's cars while their own fleet sat. So, they were trying all and any tactic to discourage the use of private cars; the advertising issue was just one of many.

Further, the ICC didn't prohibit the shipper from painting whatever they wanted on their cars, they were, after all, the shipper's property. The ICC simply ruled that the railroads did not have to accept a load in a car that carried advertising, which, of course, had exactly the same effect. It had an even more drastic effect, in that what shipper was going to risk painting their logo on the car (which was still allowable) and have a railroad refuse the car? Sure, the shipper could then complain to the ICC, but that would take months, while the shipper's load rotted in his car, possibly on an interchange track hundreds of miles from the shipper's plant. The end result was that over the course of four years, the reefer fleet became very plain looking indeed.

While as far as I know the same regulation was still in effect until the whole regulatory structure was revised by the Staggers Act of 1980, after WWII ended it appears that some common sense tempered the railroad's attitude, and colorful business logos became common once again, but never again did a business paint a whole list of their products on their freight cars.

Thanks for this admirably accurate and succinct statement of the facts, Dennis, though i suppose there are still STMFC subscribers who will dismiss it as nothing more than “roundhouse rumor."

Richard Hendrickson



Dennis Storzek
 

One other point needs to be addressed. Because of the way interchange between carriers worked in the US, the decision to accept a car in interchange was made multiple times during the trip, every time the car went from one railroad to another. Railroad A, the originating carrier might accept the car, railroad B, the line haul carrier might be OK with it, but if railroad C, the delivering carrier refused the car, the shipper had a big problem. Each railroad made its own determination when the car was actually offered for interchange. So, it was not really to the shipper's advantage to try to prove a point by painting the car with a company logo (allowed) rather than an advertisement for a specific product (not allowed) and then have some railroad clear across the country object. The end result is private logos disappeared, even in cases where they didn't really need to.

After WWII some sanity returned, most likely because the underlying issue of car hire rates had been sorted out.

Dennis Storzek


Tony Thompson
 

Dennis Storzek wrote:

Further, the ICC didn't prohibit the shipper from painting whatever they wanted on their cars, they were, after all, the shipper's property. The ICC simply ruled that the railroads did not have to accept a load in a car that carried advertising, which, of course, had exactly the same effect. 


Allow me to quote from the ICC ruling itself, Docket 3887:

(E) On and after the effective date of this rule [August 1, 1934] advertisements of shippers or products are prohibited on newly constructed refrigerator cars.

    Note it is expressly for refrigerator cars. The ruling did not specify what constituted an advertisement.

(F) Effective January 1, 1937, no refrigerator cars bearing advertisements of any shipper, consignee or product, will be accepted in interchange or handled locally on any railroad.

    This does not sound to me like an option to accept such cars, or not; and is not limited to interchange operations.

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, tony@...
Publishers of books on railroad history





Tom Larsen
 

Welcome to the group, Chuck, and enjoy all the information that also comes across.
No ned to worry, this is just for fun.

The proof is that nobody would seriosly start a sentence by writing: Aside from having a malfunctioning spell checker... and then end the same sentence by writing that the person: ...simply doesnt know wheat hes talking about here.

Look at it as a humorous way to get som steam era commodity into the reefers for the return trip.
We are one big friendly bunch and the egos are checked at the door most of the time

Tom Larsen
Holte, Denmark

From: mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 5:57 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Impending Cudahy meat reefers.


List,

I thought that attacks on individuals were not allowed. I am new to
this group and so far I am not impressed at the tone of the discussions.

Chuck Cover
Santa Fe, NM





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


Dennis Storzek
 

Yeah, that "...or handled locally on any railroad language does seem to prohibit the cars with "advertising" completely. I wonder at what point this ruling was changed or modified. It would certainly seem that the question what was advertising needed clarification A quick look through Kaminski's book (the only chronological source easily available to me) doesn't have enough examples. What we normally think of as "billboard" cars are common up to 1927-28. There is an ART car with the shield built in 1936, but ART was railroad owned, not a lease fleet, correct? Ditto for the MDT cars with small logos shown in The Great Yellow Fleet. The first "X" reporting mark car in the ACF book having a private logo is an ARLX car, built in 1949. And of course, we know there was a great proliferation of packing house logos on reefers just after the end of the era covered by this list, but long before the Staggers Act of 1980.

Has anyone ever researched what specifically reversed the "ban"?

Dennis


Andy Sperandeo
 

Denny asked "Has anyone ever researched what specifically reversed the 'ban'"?

I don't think it has been reversed. The Wisconsin Southern, a local regional line, painted an RBL insulated boxcar to mimic the scheme used on highway semi-trailers by Sargento Cheese, a Wisconsin cheese maker. The sides of the car were painted in a "swiss cheese" pattern with a diagonal black band carrying the name "Sargento." When it turned out that the car was used in general service and not solely (or at all) for Sargento products, the FRA told the WS that it was in violation. The name "Sargento" was quickly painted over with solid black. The car's swiss cheese look was left in place, however, at least as far as the last sighting by anyone I know.

So long,

Andy 



From: "destorzek@... [STMFC]"
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Impending Cudahy meat reefers.

 
Yeah, that "...or handled locally on any railroad language does seem to prohibit the cars with "advertising" completely. I wonder at what point this ruling was changed or modified. It would certainly seem that the question what was advertising needed clarification A quick look through Kaminski's book (the only chronological source easily available to me) doesn't have enough examples. What we normally think of as "billboard" cars are common up to 1927-28. There is an ART car with the shield built in 1936, but ART was railroad owned, not a lease fleet, correct? Ditto for the MDT cars with small logos shown in The Great Yellow Fleet. The first "X" reporting mark car in the ACF book having a private logo is an ARLX car, built in 1949. And of course, we know there was a great proliferation of packing house logos on reefers just after the end of the era covered by this list, but long before the Staggers Act of 1980.

Has anyone ever researched what specifically reversed the "ban"?

Dennis



Tim O'Connor
 


  > (F) Effective January 1, 1937, no refrigerator cars bearing advertisements of any shipper,
  > consignee or product, will be accepted in interchange or handled locally on any railroad.
  > Tony Thompson

I think Dennis was referring to the meaning of the word "advertisements" which is
not clarified and therefore is left up to the judgement of each carrier and what mood
they happened to be in that day. Dennis noted that at first shippers virtually eliminated
even their ownership logos from cars, and only later began restoring them.

Of course, a large shipper like Swift might have many shipping route choices from point
A to point B -- so woe to the carrier that refuses to handle a Swift reefer. They might
find they've lost a lot of valuable traffic! Which is just my way of saying that private
car owners were not entirely without leverage, if they were large enough.

Tim O'Connor