Santa Fe Cool!

Trains Magazine General Discussion
1

Not just cool. But Santa Fe Cool!

SEE - a brakeman riding the top of a boxcar passing signals.

SEE - railroad men getting on and off moving equipment

SEE - a reefer being iced

SEE - freight being damaged and business being lost to truckers

SEE - upset rail customers

SEE - why loose car railroading is basically hopeless

AND MUCH MORE in this amazing video produced by the Santa Fe Railroad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHRGkGFwo7k&feature=related

After viewing this totally cool and totally amazing video you’ll understand why Harry C, Ames of the Interstate Commerce Commission did as much, or more, to harm the US economy than any other person ever to live. (He blocked the replacement of loose car railroading by container service. In eight years of container operation, the New York Central never experienced a claim for damage. Ole Harry C. just had to put a stop to such quality.)

2

Then why are utilities and other so-called “captive” shippers so anxious to re-regulate the railroads?

3

OH Geese! The two issues have nothing to do with each other. And I need to know the definition you’re using of a so-called 'Captive" shipper. People tend to play fast and loose with that term. So we need to nail down just what you are talking about before serious discussion can begin.

I thought it was an interesting training video that demonstrated two things: 1) How railroading used to be done (and why that was non-competitive), and 2) why intermodal containerization is the only way to move many products by rail. Carload just doesn’t work.

While waiting for your definition of a so-caled “Captive” shipper, I’ll opine that some firms just want the government to force the railroads to charge them less. Since the government does not have (and cannot develop) a rational, empirical way to determine what a railroad “should” charge, any such effort would be a political exercise. Setting prices by politics is not good for an economy.

The point I made in the original post was that needed change was blocked by a US Government bureaucrat. He (Harry C. Ames) simply didn’t know what he was doing. The railroads had developed a truck competitive intermodal container system in the 1920s than virtually eliminated freight damage. Ames blocked its implementation. That’s a fact. It happened. The actions of an ignorant Federal bureacrat, Harry C. Ames, seriously hurt the US economy and the American people.

But his actions have nothing to do with the so-called “Captive” shippers today.

4

I can understand that Ames did not know what he was doing, but what was he intending to do? How would he have explained and justified his need to block the truck competitive container system? Did he see some undesirable effect of the system that he was trying to prevent?

5

One would have to look at the full ICC Finance Docket regarding the issues and the applicable law in such a matter. Hearing examiners are not members of the judiciary and are expected to base their decisions on the law as written. Remember that somebody had to protest these rates for this issue to come before the ICC.

6

I don’t know much about this, but I kinda feel that maybe Ames’s goal was not to hurt the railroads, but to help the fledgling trucking industry. Of course anytime you help one industry, you’re hurting the competition. He did use a sledge hammer, though.

7

Drat! I’ve got the direct quote from Ames’ recommendation that killed the growing container service . But it’s at home and I’m on the road. I’ll post it as soon as possible.

Ames was an “Attorney-Examiner” for the ICC. The AE’s did the real work on the commission. The nine commission members simply didn’t have time to go around the country and examine each issue in detail. The commissioners pretty much went along with the AE’s recommendations.

Ames was operating under the Transportation Act of 1920. This act gave the ICC very wide latitude (an understatement) with regards to rail rates. It only specified that rates be “Just and Reasonable.” This is basically meaningless. There is no question that Ames could have legally approved the reduced container rates if he had chosen to do so.

As I recall the quote, Ames cited no law in disallowing the lower container rates (which reflected greatly lower rail cost) but simply said it was “better” for the rail rates to be held high. He didn’t say why it was better; he just said it was better.

Speculation on his reasoning would require getting inside his head. We know what he wrote, but that’s all. I have no idea if he was paid off or what. If I had to guess I’d guess that, as a lawyer, he valued precedent, procedure, and process above action. The container rail rates were an unprecedented departure from the existing rail pricing structure and he just flat out rejected that. That such a change&nbs

8

For what it’s worth, Ames’ 9-1-08 obit in the Washington Post says he founded a law firm with his father in 1939 and “represented more than 287 trucking and barge lines over the years.”

9

.

That’s the obit of Harry C. Ames Jr who was the son of the container killer. Harry C. Sr., who killed domestic container service for about 50 years, died around 1966.

Jr. did his share of dirty work too. He was involved in “The Ingot Molds” case and helped get the ICC to hold rail rates high enough to limit competitiveness with a truck-barge move. Of course, this set one of those cherished “Precedents” and allowed the ICC to basically allocate freight among the modes. Again, the US economy and the US perople paid a stiff price.

T

10

OK, here’s the quote I promised from Ames’ recommendation - and more:

"In 1929 Examiner Ames made his report. He approved of container service in principal but found the rates unreasonable and unlawful, in violation of section 15a of the Interstate Commerce Act in that they unjustly burdened other traffic, and unlawfully lower than the carload rates on some commodities. He also found containers unsuitable for western movement.

(My memory was faulty in a previous post, Ames did cite what he felt was a violation of the law. His finding that containers were unsuitable for western movement actually lead to the ICC banning container use west of the Mississippi River.)

Examiner Ames condemned the rates with the following quote:

‘The container has merit as a facility of carriage. The better plan it to let that merit be the urge to its use. If it fails of that purpose then the container should fail. To let it prove its worth by virtue of an unnecessary sacrifice in revenue is to disavow its mechanical merit instead of allowing shipper to buy and pay for it. The fact that the shippers who obtain substantial rate reductions use it or desire to use it proves nothing. Its desirability as an agency of transportation will be proved only if and when it is chosen over other facilities on a fairly comparable basis of rates’".

<

11

All this reminds me of a great quote from Abraham Lincoln:

“The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly!”