[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Fw: (erielack) Maybrook

A while ago there was some traffic regarding routings of cars from New
England via EL to destinations that just made no sense to anyone thinking
logically, as opposed to railroadically.  I forwarded this on to Larry
DeYoung for a learned analysis, which he indeed provided and which I post
here for the benefit of the list.

I apologize for posting such a long message, but I wanted to be sure that
those with short memories (what did you say?) will have the full context of
Larry's response, and besides there's a couple of newbies on here now too.

SGL

- ----------
> From: LARRY A DE YOUNG <"LARRYDEYOUNG_@_prodigy.net">
> To: Schuyler G. Larrabee <"SGL2_@_IX.NETCOM.COM">
> Subject: Re: (erielack) Maybrook
> Date: Monday, May 03, 1999 6:41 PM
> 
> It was that "odd and eccentric"  ICC regulation, which at the time was
SOP
> on all railroads.  The shipper determined the routing, and the railroad
had
> NO SAY WHATSOEVER in it once the shipper put the route on the waybill. 
Just
> because it was a PC origin meant next to nothing.  The cars were moving
on
> old New Haven routings (and rates--in fact PC could have taken the Dayton
> cars to Dayton, but EL would still have been legally entitled to its
> Maybrook divisions!).  No wonder PC didn't want the NH.  By getting it,
they
> were forced to short-haul themselves.
> 
> In fact, when the Staggers Act passed and Conrail closed some inefficient
> routes, there was a huge hue-and-cry from certain shippers.  For example,
> cars from ATSF origins could be routed to CR destinations over TPW, which
> ATSF took over just for that reason (it then got part of the eastern rate
as
> well as all the western rate).  But when CR closed the Logansport
> interchange, ATSF sold TPW post-haste.  But that wasn't even a bad
example.
> Until 1980, there were routes on the books, although no-doubt rarely
used,
> which saw cars from Maine to Missouri moving over Conrail four or more
> separate times, for example,
>
MEC-BM-Boston-CR-Albany-DH-Binghamton-CR-Buffalo-NW-Cleveland-CR-Cincinnati-

> BO-Indianapolis-CR-St.Louis.  Of course it traced back to the existence
of
> the B&A, the EL, the Big Four, and the PRR, but they NEVER WENT AWAY in
the
> routes published at the ICC!  And the overall rate was the same on every
> route, which is why the EL had traffic moving over it from Chicago that
> originated in Alabama and was destined for New Hampshire.  The rational
> route was ACL-Potomac Yard-PC-Palmer-BM, but it went
> ACL-Birmingham-L&N-Chicago-EL-Binghamton-DH-Mechanicville-BM so the
> shipper's agent, who had friends in the sales department at L&N, EL, and
> D&H, could reward his buddies who were given incentives for winning
> carloads.  This traffic moved at the same rate to the customer as if it
had
> taken the direct route.   And it was required by law that it be that way.
> The company may have lost money on every load, but that didn't matter to
the
> ICC (when I joined the CR Marketing Department, we were not allowed to
tell
> salesmen what the cost was to move a carload-they were told what the rate
> was, and to sell carloads.  They always, and rationally to them, fought
us
> when we wanted to use bigger cars, because then the number of carloads
they
> could sell went down!)  Is it any wonder why so many railroad salesmen
used
> to "drink their lunches" with their clients?  It was a very corrupting
> system, and extremely inefficient.
> 
> The other aspect of the routing question had to do with where the
customer
> was located in those common terminals.  It was far more likely that PC
held
> on to the cars for Rochester if the customer was on PC, even if it was
"open
> to switching", while the EL got a piece of the road haul if the consignee
> was on EL.  The best place to learn about this is in a book entitled
> "Enterprise Denied: Origins of the Decline of American Railroads,
1897-1917"
> by Albro Martin.  Also good is "Unfinished Business: the Railroad in
> American Life," by Maury Klein.  Take your blood pressure medicine first,
> because you won't believe some of the stuff the railroads had to
overcome,
> or how long it took to do so.  Just remember that it took Conrail losing
a
> million a day of federal funds to make the point that it WASN'T
> diversification into real estate that caused the railroads to fail.  The
> roots of the problem were no secret.  Martin's book was written in 1971,
but
> if you check out the AAR's ad copy, and that of the Erie, PRR, and others
in
> the forties and fifties, you'll see that railroad management knew they
were
> on the way down.  Perhaps their big business mistake was in not
> precipitating the crisis sooner.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Schuyler G. Larrabee <"SGL2_@_IX.NETCOM.COM">
> To: Larry A DeYoung <"larrydeyoung_@_prodigy.net">
> Date: Friday, April 30, 1999 11:12 PM
> Subject: Fw: (erielack) Maybrook
> 
> 
> >Care to offer the explanation?
> >
> >SGL
> >
> >----------
> >> From: Christopher Thurner <"cthurner_@_adelphia.net">
> >> To: Chas. Cacioppo <"cacioppo_@_planet.net">; erielack@internexus.net
> >> Subject: RE: (erielack) Maybrook
> >> Date: Thursday, April 29, 1999 7:33 PM
> >>
> >> Interesting reading and curious car routings.
> >>
> >> Why would PC route Buffalo, Chicago, Rochester, Syracuse, Olean bound
> >> traffic over the EL when it served all of these locations?  It is
> >> particularly intriguing that with Buffalo, Chicago, Syracuse and
> >Rochester
> >> on PC's former NYC main Water Level Route, which PC accessed via
Selkirk,
> >NY
> >> off the B&A, that they would route to the EL.  For example:
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: "erielack-owner_@_internexus.net"
> >[mailto:"erielack-owner_@_internexus.net"]
> >> On Behalf Of Chas. Cacioppo
> >> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 1999 4:25 PM
> >> To: "erielack_@_internexus.net"
> >> Subject: (erielack) Maybrook
> >>
> >> Al Tillotson wrote:
> >>
> >> <big snip>
> >>
> >> NE97's 72 cars were destined as follows:
> >> Buffalo N&W 13 cars.
> >> Buffalo C&O 1 car.
> >> Buffalo local 1 car.
> >> Chicago BN 8 cars.
> >> Chicago C&EI 5 cars.
> >> Chicago ATSF 2 cars.
> >> Chicago IC 1 car.
> >> Chicago CNW 1 car.
> >> Chicago CRIP 1 car.
> >> Chicago BRC 1 car.
> >> Chicago local 1 car.
> >> Rochester PC 1 car.
> >> Syracuse PC 1 car.
> >> Syracuse local 1 car.
> >> ??? B&O 2 cars.
> >> Mahwah Ford 15 cars (empty racks).
> >> Croxton local 7 cars.
> >> Marion local 1 car.
> >> Olean local 1 car.
> >> South Dayton local 1 car.
> >> Honesdale local 2 cars.
> >> Home road 5 cars (empty EL cars delivered to EL).
> >>
> >> Other than the obvious traffic to locations served exclusively by the
EL
> >> (i.e. Mahwah / Croxton, Honesdale, home road cars), it seems that the
> >other
> >> cars would have been kept on PC as long as possible and then
interchanged
> >to
> >> their ultimate destinations (i.e S. Dayton, Marion, etc.).  Why for
> >example,
> >> turn over a S. Dayton bound car at Maybrook, when PC could have hauled
it
> >to
> >> Buffalo and turned it over to the EL there?  It is especially
intriguing
> >> that PC would turn over cars that would be delivered to PC in
Rochester /
> >> Syracuse?  Does any of the list members know (speculate) why this
> >practice
> >> was in place?   It seems logical that revenue would be greater,
> >especially
> >> for the originating road, the more a car was kept on its rails and not
> >> turned over to another carrier.
> >>
> >> Was this the case in 71, or, was there some odd or eccentric ICC
> >regulation
> >> that forced the routing this way? Was the bulk of the revenue to be
> >earned
> >> by the originating road once it picked a car up and moved it a short
> >> distance, and little revenue was to be earned after that by the
> >interchange
> >> road (i.e., little incremental revenues to be earned by PC moving the
car
> >to
> >> Buffalo, let's say, so give the car to EL at Maybrook, PC minimizes
its
> >> costs, earns the lion's share of revenue, EL must move it (and incur
most
> >of
> >> the costs and earn comparatively little revenues)?)
> >>
> >> Summary:
> >> Interchanged to other carriers 37 cars.
> >> Destined to EL points 30 cars.
> >> Empty EL cars returned 5 cars.
> >>
> >> <Another big snip>
> >>
> >> I welcome any comments and insight.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Chris Thurner
> >>
> >>  ------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Visit the erielack photopage at http://el-list.railfan.net
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>  ------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Visit the erielack photopage at http://el-list.railfan.net
> >>
> >>
> >>  ------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Visit the erielack photopage at http://el-list.railfan.net
> 

 ------------------------------------------------------------
Visit the erielack photopage at http://el-list.railfan.net

------------------------------