locked [modelintermodal] Container Standardization


George Eichelberger
 

Forwarded from a thread on the intermodal.io group. 

The Southern was an early “player” in containerized intermodal services. The attached document from the SRHA archives is a good example of the material we have in Chattanooga.

Ike


Begin forwarded message:

From: "George Eichelberger" <geichelberger@...>
Subject: Re: [modelintermodal] Container Standardization
Date: March 12, 2022 at 2:23:09 PM EST

Per the attached Southern Railway 10-18-1965 memo* from L Stanley Crane to President D.W. Brosnan (resolution reduced, I trust it is still legible?), the ISO’s decision to use a similar container corner casting as the Southern had used for several years may have been only somewhat “fortuitous” given that both the railroad and the ISO would probably not have  standardized on a patented corner casting design. I expect although the “Fruehauf corner casting” did not bring them licensing fees, it certainly was responsible for them selling a lot of containers and trailers to the Southern Railway.

(Part of my work with GTE many years ago, before NS, was working on international electronic system standards Although proprietary designs were proposed quite often, unless the patent owner would agree to license the design with little or no fee, its chances of being adopted were minimal.)

*From the Southern Railway Historical Association’s (SRHA) archives

Ike

PS SR Intermodal traffic through Pot Yard interchanged with the PRR appears to have been slow to begin because of the Baltimore tunnels, the fact that the Southern and the B&O had established a relationship and that the PRR was inclined to structure business agreements more to their control and standards plus the fact that through Conrail, the Pennsy was more interested in E-W traffic than shorter N-S business.



On Mar 12, 2022, at 12:46 PM, Paul Brezicki <doctorpb@...> wrote:

“….compatibility of SR boxes with ISO boxes was likely fortuitous rather than successful lobbying.”




George Eichelberger
 

This is a cross post from the Intermodal.io group.

There is much more to be researched and written about the Southern’s early intermodal efforts!

Ike


Begin forwarded message:

From: "George Eichelberger" <geichelberger@...>
Subject: Re: [modelintermodal] Container Standardization
Date: March 14, 2022 at 10:20:55 AM EDT


On Mar 14, 2022, at 7:56 AM, Paul Brezicki <doctorpb@...> wrote:
"PC and CNJ-RDG-B&O each operated a pair of TOFC trains between Pot Yard and North Jersey with traffic interchanged from SR and SCL-RF&P. …."

Given the interest and importance Southern Railway management was giving to “Rail-Highway” services in the early and mid ‘60s, there are quite a few memos and letters in the Presidents’ files concerning intermodal* traffic through Pot Yard. 

Interchange with the B&O at Pot Yard is discussed at length in a 9-22-65 memo. Southern operated Eastern Lines Tr 20 on a schedule that had it departing Atlanta at 9:30 PM arriving in Alexandria (Van Dorn St.) at 11:00 AM and Pot Yard at 11:59 (14 1/2 hours). The Seaboard’s competing service left Atlanta at 2:00 PM and arrived at Pot Yard at 10:00 the following day (20 hours). Although a Pot Yard departure time for the B&O connection is not given, Southern did not want to change Tr 20’s schedule because of its later cut-off times and the B&O connection that gave better service north of Alexandria than the SAL provided.

PRR TT-24 is discussed multiple times. The last paragraph in the attached 9-2-65 memo is indicative of the overall relationship between the Southern and the Pennsylvania Railroad when it was written. After a series of letters between Brosnan and PRR President Stuart Sanders, and meetings between marketing and operating groups, a 10-6-65 memo to Brosnan explained that “PRR TT-24 has been re-scheduled to depart Potomac Yards at 3:15 pm instead of 1:00 pm and is now operating on the revised schedule. This gives us the same connection which the SAL advertised, and we are making sure that shippers understand this gives us a better than competitive service.”

*The term “intermodal” does not appear in any on the 1960s documentation.

Ike