[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re:(erielack) LCL Traffic
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
------------------------------