While there were many reasons for getting out of the perishable business, one that loomed in the 60s was the aging reefer fleet. Reefers were expensive cars to purchase, and were expensive to operate. As specialty cars they could not be used for just any load. Railroads did not relish replacing reefers and were willing to give up the traffic that was only marginally profitable.
Doug Harding
www.iowacentralrr.org
From: CBQ@groups.io <CBQ@groups.io> On Behalf Of William Hirt
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 8:15 PM
To: CBQ@groups.io
Subject: Re: [CBQ] Rollers
Pete,
I recently received from the Archives a Perishable Study that was done by the Q marketing department in 1967 about getting back bigger into the Perishable (non-Meat) business. They study states that the Q had stopped soliciting most of this traffic circa 1961-62 because it was a money loser. This study showed with the exception of one or two commodities, it would still be a money loser. Even those two commodities would be at best only very marginally profitable. And this was based on adding cars to existing trains without additional power etc. which in the final analysis was not possible. I get the impression from the correspondence included that this report that this traffic was not pursued.
After hearing you talk about the perishable business several times, it's actually amazing the railroads stayed in it as long as they did.
Bill Hirt
On 4/13/2021 11:46 AM, jpslhedgpeth via groups.io wrote:
Well well, I just had "another detail" to add to the details of railroads handling perishable products as Mr. Chaparro and I have touched on.
Those claims were so complex and could create what were known as "points of negligence" by one of the railroads over which the perishble items travelled. Claims of this nature were "apportioned" in these cases based on "Points of negligence" and the charges by the origin or destination railroad handling the claims would charge the other railroads according to their commission of said "points of negligence" The analysis and details of how the loss on this kind of claim was set over the AAR (Association of American RAilroads) whose Freight Claims Division had a "Review Bureau " AFTER THE CLAIM WAS PAID and a;pportioned among the participating railroads. If another railroad took issue as to its share of the apportionment of the claim payout they would "RECHARGE" their portion back to the railroad who paid and apportioned the payout among those roads who handled the shipment.
If the carrier did not agree with the recharge they could appeal. The procedure could go on and on and on and on...some actually for years. Eventually, theoretically there was a final decision which came from "somewhere", but I've forgotten whence it was.
All of the above"messy details" were so "arcane" nobody really knew, but it kept some employees busily engaged i these matters.
There is more, but i think "nuff said" on this matter...The Perishable BIDNESS was complex and it's benefit and profit to the railroads was always questionable to me.
You receive all messages sent to this group.