Topics

Lumber Shipments in 1952 - Through or Interchange Traffic


Charles Hostetler
 

These data show the carloads of lumber that each Class 1 carrier handled as interchange traffic (neither originated or terminated on line).  The second column shows the percent of interchange traffic relative to the total number of cars handled.  For example, interchange carloads on the UP were 62% of the total lumber carloads handled (the other 38% were either originations or terminations).  The total number of interchange carloads exceed both the number of originations and terminations, showing that most lumber loads traveled on at least 3 carriers (the originating road, one [or more] bridge roads, and the terminating road).  


Carrier Through % Traffic
UP 99026 62.50%
DRGW 56621 89.89%
CBQ 47757 68.95%
SP 42494 15.56%
CNW 41256 52.04%
PRR 37159 33.25%
MP 32496 46.87%
RI 30193 58.65%
CMO 28894 83.74%
SOO 28734 70.70%
GN 28301 36.00%
NYC 27776 30.06%
RFP 23637 97.44%
SOU (CNOTP) 22698 83.03%
NP 21937 30.42%
SOU 21643 29.17%
IC 20975 29.06%
BO 19907 38.14%
WAB 19076 62.61%
MILW 18163 25.62%
SPS 17642 29.31%
DWP 17369 99.48%
NKP 16878 57.99%
RDG 15658 57.47%
MStL 15492 85.06%
EJE 14876 86.96%
CGW 12105 76.84%
CO 11623 27.73%
LN 11300 24.84%
ACL 11049 21.13%
ERIE 10725 38.94%
WP 10587 67.86%
TNO 10336 33.56%
SOU (AGS) 9492 71.69%
CS 9190 73.10%
CRP 9131 93.56%
NWP 8670 17.16%
NYCN 8591 100.00%
SLSF 8586 32.57%
SAL 8024 22.01%
LV 7995 52.90%
DLW 7833 60.46%
GTW 7721 37.14%
WM 7682 69.61%
MON 7521 66.41%
CV 7500 87.99%
NW 7491 43.22%
DSSA 7420 57.02%
DH 7402 67.65%
BM 7122 27.17%
CG 6963 20.79%
TP 6777 31.21%
GMO 6356 24.24%
ATSF 6278 10.75%
CNJ 6087 41.51%
SSW 6086 47.67%
NH 5284 16.50%
KCS 5066 45.89%
CEI 5056 66.71%
CRR 4731 71.29%
MKT 4716 39.49%
FWD 4446 57.05%
CP(VT) 4428 95.08%
AA 4296 76.77%
GBW 4242 91.84%
KOG 4199 93.24%
NCStL 3893 38.47%
TPW 3631 85.51%
CWC 2993 48.63%
NS 2910 37.28%
DTS 2826 74.23%
LHR 2764 96.68%
SOU (GSF) 2763 43.63%
MEC 2761 36.66%
GA 2529 27.24%
WRA 2163 46.01%
GF 2064 33.67%
PWV 2058 71.42%
ACY 1947 56.64%
AWP 1935 56.27%
OW 1819 59.76%
SI 1800 35.26%
SLSF (Texas) 1796 71.12%
MP (IGN) 1675 25.48%
SOU (NONE) 1512 46.83%
CP(Me) 1444 94.17%
LA 1311 18.07%
VGN 1121 36.61%
CIM 1092 71.78%
ITC 1077 65.72%
AD 1030 58.07%
MP (GCL) 878 19.30%
DTI 765 24.76%
PLE 508 22.66%
R 391 45.19%
CN (NE) 240 19.94%
MI 226 27.68%
NYSW 207 12.60%
MSC 201 11.73%
LNE 178 27.79%
PRSL 95 3.32%
SN 92 6.21%
MV 88 5.38%
BAR 82 7.30%
TM 74 5.39%
SIR 27 6.78%
C&G 24 2.09%
TC 22 1.52%
OKCAA 17 3.51%
LIRR 16 0.08%
FEC 16 0.18%
BLE 14 1.91%
DMIR 10 1.21%
DM 2 0.55%
LSI 2 0.29%
MGA 1 0.38%
ASAB 1 0.20%



Total 1,123,858


Best Wishes for the Holiday Season!

Charles Hostetler
Washington Ill.



Garth Groff <sarahsan@...>
 

Charles,

I've had some fun playing with these statistics in regards to the Western Pacific.

So the WP handled 15,602 cars of lumber in 1952. Of these 3,112 originated on the WP, 2,062 terminated there (with 159 originating online), and 10,587 were handed off to other roads. I assume the majority of this traffic would have originated on the GN, came down the Inside Gateway, then would have split in two directions. Some would have moved east at Keddie to be handed off to the D&RGW at Salt Lake City, with possibly a small portion going to the UP. Some of the remainer moved south toward the Bay Area as terminating traffic, with most overhead cars going to the ATSF at Stockton headed to Southern California.

That sounds easy, but it's misleading. What's missing here is how much traffic originated on the WP's shortline feeders, rather than coming off the GN. In 1952 there were three important shortlines on the WP interchanging mostly lumber: Almanor Railroad, Quincy Railroad and Feather River Railway. Obviously this traffic is in the statistics, but can't be broken out. Nor do we have any information on how much traffic from these lines would have been handed off to other lines and how much went beyond the WP. This would tend to make the Inside Gateway traffic look larger.

I was also interested to see that the Southern's components are all listed separately. When you lump the four lines together, the Southern totals become much more significant. The SP becomes even larger when you add the T&NO and NWP to the SP. The same is true for the C&NW and CMO.

Yours Aye,


Garth Groff


Greg Martin
 

Garth writes in part:
 
"I was also interested to see that the Southern's components are all listed separately. When you lump the four lines together, the Southern totals become much more significant. The SP becomes even larger when you add the T&NO and NWP to the SP. The same is true for the C&NW and CMO.

Yours Aye,

Garth Groff"
 
We have to presume that the IHC was reported into the NYC numbers for revenue purposes, just as the Sacramento Northern was in the WP numbers. For the LA Basin I am not sure who was responsible for the small amount of revenue the LA Junction or the Pacific Harbor Line generated, I would suppose it was split between the parents.
 
Greg Martin
 
Eventually all things merge into one and a river runs through it.
Norman Maclean
 


Charles Hostetler
 

Greg wrote in part:

"We have to presume that the IHC was reported into the NYC numbers for revenue purposes, just as the Sacramento Northern was in the WP numbers. For the LA Basin I am not sure who was responsible for the small amount of revenue the LA Junction or the Pacific Harbor Line generated, I would suppose it was split between the parents."


It didn't work quite the way that Greg presumes/supposes.  This is the reporting requirement as quoted from the 1952 annual report:

"Under the Commission's order of September 24, 1946, as amended, steam railway companies, other than switching and terminal companies, assigned to Class 1, are required to make quarterly and annual reports of freight traffic statistics, in duplicate, and for that purpose this form is provided."

Here's the 1952 definition of freight traffic originating on respondent's road:

"Originated on respondent's road means:  (a) shipments originated directly on respondent's road; (b) shipments received from water lines and highway motor truck lines, except when identified as having previous rail transportation; (c) shipments which received first line haul on respondent's road, but originated on switching lines connected directly or indirectly with respondent's road; (d) import traffic received from water carriers, and traffic from outlying possessions of the United States; (e) outbound freight which has been accorded transit privileges."

The 1952 definition of freight traffic terminating on respondent's road is worded similarly.  

So in 1952 the IHB was a Class 1 Switching and Terminal Company (which happened to be in the Chicago Switching District), not a Class 1 steam railway.  It was not required to report (under this order), and it's statistics weren't lumped with the NYC (parent company).  Suppose we have a load originating on the SP, interchanged to the UP and then the CNW, and finally delivered to a consignee on the IHB.  This would have been recorded as a shipment of lumber, shingle, and lath originating on the SP, through for the UP and CNW , and terminating on the CNW (Note the potential for double counting; recognized by the designers of the study).  


In most cases, especially within switching districts, the originating line haul carrier (or the terminating line haul carrier) is a Class 1 steam railway and the carload is reported.  But there are cases where the originating (or terminating) line haul railway is NOT a Class 1 Steam Railway NOR a switching or terminal line (loads originating and/or terminating on the Atlantic and Danville for example).  In such cases the statistics were "missed" by this reporting system.  This is one of the two reasons why for a given commodity in any given year the number of originations did not match the number of terminations.  

Regards,

Charles Hostetler
Washington Ill.


Jack Mullen
 

Greg wrote:
We have to presume that the IHC was reported into the NYC numbers for revenue purposes, just as the Sacramento Northern was in the WP numbers.

IHC? Did you mean IHB? 

If so why would you presume the IHB is rolled into NYC? Sure the NYC had a controlling interest, which was certainly reflected in the look and feel of the Harbor, including its Steam Era freight cars. But two other Class I RRs, CNW and MILW, had significant shares (20% each) so it's not as if IHB revenue just flowed to NYC. 

IIRC IHB's absence from stats was mentioned a while ago. I suspect it's not a matter of being included within another RR's numbers, but rather that IHB is a terminal road.  Because they were in a rather different sort of business, terminal/switching road data often wasn't commingled with line-haul roads, and some of the reporting requirements differed, I believe.

Jack Mullen
 


 

Greg
Santa Fe always had a controlling interest in the Los Angeles Junction RY until1972 when LAJ became wholly owned by them. My LAJ  research has shown that cars from just about every RR from Mexico to Canada have shown up on the LAJ.
Andy Jackson
Santa Fe Springs CA