Re:(erielack) LCL Traffic

[Joe K <joesk_@_ix.netcom.com>]

At 11:20 AM 8/7/05, Michael Connor wrote:
>Another factor was equipment utilization -- an NYC man of my acquaintance 
>had reason to observe Erie trains in the Corning-Elmira area for a year or 
>two c. 1950.  He noted to me that every 2nd day (maybe 3rd?) first EB then 
>WB he'd see the same high-class Erie boxcar carrying NY-Chgo LCL.  The 
>possibility of a 2000 mile round-trip (and under full or partial load each 
>way) every week for any piece of railroad equipment is pretty good, 
>considering intermediate loading, unloading, etc.
>       The replacement for each box car was two or three trailers and one 
> or two TOFC flats, hardly a cost-effective trade-off based on equipment 
> consideration only.
>       I would opine that some of the problems with New York City access 
> shiould be laid at the grave of Robert Moses, the inveterate railroad 
> hater and promoter of the highway infrastructure that has so crippled New 
> York City today.
>       It is sobering to note that LCL, which the railroads said couldn't 
> be profitable, is the basis for the most profitable trucking companies today.

And the premium cost/expedited delivery services are a growing profit 
margin for those LTL trucking companies also.

>
>On a related basis we let REA Express fade away as unprofitable while an 
>outfit called UPS didn't read the railroad playbook.  Just some 
>thoughts.  M J Connor

If I recall correctly, REA also had a much more inefficient paperwork 
system vs. UPS. I believe REA required a bill of lading for each 
package/parcel where UPS had a more simplified system which eased shippers' 
paperwork headaches. When shipping large numbers of items, this was a huge 
advantage to UPS.

Joe K.



	The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
	Sponsored by the ELH&TS
	http://www.elhts.org

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