Paul, thanks again to you, sir. I wonder if Mrs. Smith’s car was attached to a regular NY and Boston train that split at Albany.
ALFRED HOLLAND SMITH (1863-), American railway official, was born in Cleveland, 0., April 26 1863. He began work on the New York Central railway system as a messenger-boy in 1879. After serving as a foreman of construction and in various capacities in the engineering department, he was in 1890 appointed superintendent of the Kalamazoo division of the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern railway. He was successively division superintendent, assistant general superintendent and general superintendent of the Lake Shore road. In 1902 he became general superintendent of the New York Central railroad; in 1906 vice-president of the New York Central system; and in 1914 president. When the American railways were taken over by the U.S. Government Dec. 27 1917, he was appointed assistant director-general and it was he who worked out the form of central and regional administration under which the railways of the country were managed during the 26 months of Government operation. His aim, in which he succeeded, was to keep the management of the roads with their 2,000,000 employees, nearly all voters, in the hands of practical railway-men and, above all, out of politics. He divided the country into two regions and later into seven, each region being in charge of a railway officer of experience and reputation, he himself taking charge of the most important region, the Eastern. These regional directors had complete authority and only broad matters of policy and inter-regional questions were handled by the central (political) administration at Washington. In this way the railways were conducted throughout the war without great blunders or disorganization. On the completion of this important national service he was reelected preside
Just one more thing, said Columbo, the link to a patent granted in 1925 is supplemented by this link to a patent granted in 1922. I guess NYC’s contract with the Post Office was proof to the Patent Office that “Smith’s invention” was highly patentable.
Most of the tonnage moved on the railroads consists of bulk freight transported in carload lots. The American railroad freight facilities, including the freight car, have been developed to accomplish the movement of heavy freight long distances at minimum cost per ton mile. There is, however, a not inconsiderable volume of less-than-carload and package freight for which appropriate terminal and transportation facilities have to be provided. Before the improved highways and the motor trucks transferred from rail to road half or more of this l.c.l. freight, it constituted about 5 per cent of railroad tonnage and yielded about 15 per cent of railroad freight revenues. While freight will continue to move in large and increasing quantity by highway and truck, it is, nevertheless, possible for the railroads to adopt methods and use facili- ties that will increase l.c.l. traffic. The methods being adopted provide for the transportation of freight, not merely from station to station and only by rail, but directly from shipper to consignee by a coordinated motor and rail service. To facilitate, and lessen the cost of, this coordinated and complete service, provision is being made for the loading of package freight at the shipper’s platform into freight containers or into demountable truck bodies and the transport of the loaded containers and truck bodies by motor-rail-and-motor to the platform of the consignee.
A few posts above someone essentially asked why the PRR and NYC didn’t set-up autonomous businesses to run the container/ LCL operations so as to evade - no, comply with - the ICC’s rulings. An obvious response is, “How do you then keep enough control to prevent it from becoming a monster that turns around and eats you up ?”
That got me to wondering about how much the NYC and PRR would have trusted each other not to do something like that - based on their past mutual enmity as demonstrated some 30 years earlier by the South Penn RR vs. West Shore RR standoff, etc.
But more worthwhile - I also wondered what the extent and volume of their respective container operations were. They really served separate and different territories from New York City west to about Buffalo - and pragmatically, as far west to mid-Ohio; west of there, they weren’t far apart, and both served the major cities as far west as Chicago of course and St. Louis. So were these containers used mainly for short-hauls within a couple hundred miles of the Big Apple, or did they go to Chicago frequently ? Did any other western - or southern - railroads handle them, or was that the extent the organized operation ?
Interesting subject, and thanks again for the links and copy of that article, Mike.
In today’s conglamorated and merged railroad map, Paul, you do bring up a point the youngen’s can’t fathom. That is that individual railroad used to be much more territorial measured in miles and feet than by states and regions. The NYC and the PRR did serve the same end points defined as Chicago and New York City but by and large the space between those cities was not at all the same. Yes, there was incursions of NYC into PA and W.VA coal country and PRR branches lapping the shores of the Great Lakes; and it was competitive but there was room for it. If you take NJ as an example, going west from tidewater each railroad commandeered a valley or pathway across the state often within sight of each other yet setting themselves seperate and apart from each other, not interfering in the others business (not saying they didn’t compete for business and traffic in towns and the state, just that they were seperate). Thus loading a container in NY for Philadelphia or Atlanta or New Orleans would most likely have been the PRR’s job while Albany, Buffalo, and Cleveland would go to the NYC ( yes, for this arguement I am ignoring Erie, LV, DLW, B&O et al.) But the point is that there were more railroads giving more communities more choices. And while the routes were seperated there were many opportunities for competition among railroads (which help keep prices down) encouraged service.
I didn’t understand the post saying the railroads should have formed a forwarder and then sold it off either.
Duplicating Acme Fast Freight (a forwarder) would do what? Acme was started in 1926 and within the next 10 years grew to handle more LCL than any railroad save the Pennsylvania. That’s pretty good growth in a depression The growth indicates there was a strong market need for forwarder services.
The mailman delivered “Organization and Traffic of the Illinois Central System” today. This is a very good look at how one railroad operated during the late 1930’s. The book was written by a series of key personnel within the IC and covers various topics such as 1. IC Property (including in depth review of the Chicago operation)2. Operations of the company. 3 Traffic Department functions 4. Passenger Traffic 5. Freight traffic (including chapters on all major commodities such as coal, lumber, grain, automotive 6. Traffic outlines by areas in which certain geographic areas are reviewed.
This is a very interesting look at the IC at one period of time with very detailed explanation of why this company was in business. This book was compiled for training and educational purposes for the IC employees.
Does anyone know of any similar books published by other railroads?
I picked this up for $15 including shipping from Abebooks. Well worth it.
Meanwhile, the Canadian railroads - unhampered by the ICC - went ahead and started the modern container era, even before Malcolm MacLean and his Sea-Land Service. See:
Integration in the north
How White Pass & Yukon, Alaska, and CN-Newfoundland interchange
by Hilton, George W.
from Trains July 1971 p. 36
ARR CNR container ferry WP&Y
and, an even better article from Toronto in 2006 that I just found tod
Meanwhile, the Canadian railroads - unhampered by the ICC - went ahead and started the modern container era, even before Malcolm MacLean and his Sea-Land Service. See:
Integration in the north
How White Pass & Yukon, Alaska, and CN-Newfoundland interchange
by Hilton, George W.
from Trains July 1971 p. 36
ARR CNR container ferry WP&Y
Meanwhile, the Canadian railroads - unhampered by the ICC - went ahead and started the modern container era, even before Malcolm MacLean and his Sea-Land Service. See:
Integration in the north
How White Pass & Yukon, Alaska, and CN-Newfoundland interchange
by Hilton, George W.
from Trains July 1971 p. 36
ARR CNR container ferry
I have also heard knowledgeable comments that this is a mostly a serious pipedream. A large amount of the construction costs would have by government investment, and Canada is no different from the US in the unequal treatment of transportation investment and support.