Re:Milk Traffic; was: (erielack) More EL in Massachusetts!

["Paul Brezicki" <doctorpb_@_bellsouth.net>]

You're absolutely right, Randy; the point I was making is that it was labor 
intensive compared to most other rail traffic. An extra switch crew was 
required to deliver the milk promptly on arrival, unlike the bulk 
commodities that suited the "you'll get it when we get around to it" 
approach of an industry that was trying to reduce labor costs. And I didn't 
intend to imply trains handling milk were slow, but was pointing out the 
origin of a term that refers to trains that stop frequently.

Paul B

From: "Janet & Randy Brown" <jananran_@_mymailstation.com>
Subject: Re:Milk Traffic; was: (erielack) More EL in Massachusetts!

It's a little misleading to compare the labor intensity of rail milk trsffic 
with truck movement, when a 20-car milk train with a crew of five was 
replaced by 40 or 50 trucks with an crew equivalent of 40 or 50 men 
(drivers), even accounting for the handling at origin and destination, 
because much of that handling happened anyway.

As has been mentioned time and again, a major factor was our decision as a 
culture to tax the railroads for their land and improvements and then funnel 
that revenue into highway improvements which fostered truck transportation, 
to the railroads' detriment.

And -- the image of the slow, plodding "milk run" wasn't fully accurate, 
either.  Once assembled, the milk train was often one of the fastest on the 
road because of the perishability of the lading.  Today's milk was expected 
on tomorrow's breakfast table hundreds of miles away.

I wonder how the economics are holding up in this day of $5.00 diesel and 
the need to repair or replace the Interstate Highway System.  The milk still 
moves, after all.

Randy Brown
 


	The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
	http://EL-List.railfan.net/
	To Unsubscribe: http://Lists.Railfan.net/erielackunsub.html

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