"Cars like this one, known as billboard cars, were painted elaborately for advertising until the federal government said they couldn't be used for that purpose . . ."

Can somebody elaborate on this statement? When and why?

theres a lot of cleanup, there may be some preserving paints/stains whatever that can seep into the wood to preserve, clear paints, but it looks like a go as you have to go ordeal. Just keep bringing the ideas something may happen.

Overmod,

I understand your point that the bacon ad does function like a billboard, but here is why I ask the question:

Billboard cars are something that I have heard of, but the topic has left me with lingering questions. I was led to believe that, at one time in the early era, they were everywhere, probably mostly as boxcars. The car owners, mostly railroad companies, sold advertising space on them. So the ads usually had nothing to do with the products being hauled in the cars. The car sides were simply sold to the highest bidder as advertising space just like a highway billboard.

Then some shippers found that their products were being shipped in cars that were carrying billboard ads for their competitor’s products. So they complained to the government that the practice was unfair, and the government outlawed billboard cars.

Some cars were owned by the shipper, and carried ads for the shipper’s products. I believe this was common at least into the 1960s. In the earlier era, it seems like it was particularly common with refrigerator cars, and I have seen many examples of refers with large billboard-like advertising with logos and slogans.

Therefore, I would assume that these refers are not billboard cars, because they carried the owner’s products, and while the cars carried large ads, the space was not for sale to the general public as ad space for any purpose, which was the premise of “billboard cars.”

But here is my larger question: Where are the photos or documentation of the true billboard cars? I don’t recall ever seeing a photo of a billboard car, not a single one, and yet they are said to have once been ubiquitous.

I once read a review of John White’s book, The American Freight Car, in which it mentioned that the book offered a “parade of billboard cars.” I can only conclude that the reviewer believes that cars merely carrying slogans and prominent lettering were what constituted “billboard cars.”

I wonder if the true billboard cars were not actually painted as billboards, but rather, had paper “bills” glued to them with adhesive. That would explain why none survived to this day. But it would not explain the lack of photographs of such cars covered with general advertising if they were everywhere, as has been said.

Probably the definitive text on "billboard reefers" was published in Billboard Refrigerator Cars by Hendrickson and Kaminski, ISBN-13:9781930013223. They devote an entire chapter to the reasons for the ICC action banning advertisement on the sides of freight cars; to summarize briefly, it was found to constitute an illegal rebate to the shipper. This source quotes the actual commission ruling, which I will quote in part here:

"(E) On and after the effective date of this ruling [August 1, 1934] advertisements of shippers or products are prohibited on newly constructed or repainted refrigerator cars."

"(F) Effective January 1, 1937, no refrigerator cars bearing advertisements of any shipper, consignee, or product, will be accepted in interchange or handled locally on any railroad."

"The effective date of (F) was subsequently extended to 1938."

The four year grace period for existing cars brings up an interesting point; this was intended to allow repainting the cars in the normal course of maintenance. While it's interesting that the original paint is so well preserved, those waxing poetically about the "patina" are way off base. These cars were never intended to acquire a patina. In service, they were repainted on a regular cycle. Why would a company want their advertisement on a decrepit piece of rolling stock? I could see trying to preserve the original brushwork if this car had a hand painted mural, as some did, but it doesn't. It's simply black lettering on yellow. Document the color, document the letterforms and their placement, and put the exterior finish in top notch condition, the way the owners intended.

So the short answer to my question is the practice of commercial advertising was banned on refrigerator cars, but legitimized the use of advertising on box cars?

The ICC ruling specifically mentions reefers. Most of those were privately owned. So advertising by railroads on their own cars (e.g., "Ride the Super Chief" on ATSF boxcars) was OK? Sure seems that way. Perhaps the difference is the definition of the word "product." Hams and bacon advertised on reefers were products. But aren't name trains the "products" of the operating railroad? Sure seems like the ICC was making a special case of the reefer owners.

Dennis,

That is an interesting explanation of the outlawing of billboard refrigerator cars. So it sounds like the ICC believed that exposing a shipper’s car to the public as it traveled, enriched the shipper by the advertising effect, and that amounted to a discount of the shipping rate. But is this all there was to the billboard car era? Was there ever a near universal practice in which advertisers bought space on the sides of boxcars for the purpose of displaying their advertising? My source for that information is very limited. Maybe it is simply incorrect and no such practice ever existed.

Regarding patina, I see it as being its own objective. It does indeed conflict with the as-new, or even properly maintained appearance. While patina may never have occurred while in use, it did occur during the aging of the artifact. The aging carries its own message of durability, long life, and survival of an artifact of the past. The patina can reinforce an affinity for the past. But I don’t think there is any right or wrong preference for either preserving the aged look versus the new look.

The aging adds a sense of credibility or authenticity that some might prefer over the restored to new look even though the aged condition may have never been allowed to develop while in use. But regarding the choice of old look or new look, I think the most important point is that once you replace the patina with the new look, you can never get the patina back.

Wm303,

As I have indicated above, I am not sure of the answer to your question. The billboard car era that I have been led to believe once existed would have been outlawed long before 1934, possibly even before 1900. So I suspect the billboard car concept has more to it than just the developments leading up to the 1934 decision. As I mentioned, I had understood that the billboard car practice was outlawed because shippers complained about their products being carried in cars advertising for their competitors. But that could be just a rather distorted interpretation of the 1934 ruling.

It is my understanding that the use of advertising was never an issue on boxcars, because boxcars were owned by the railroads, who did not sell advertising space, at least not in the twentieth century. Special promotional banners advertising the 10,000th carload..., etc. were understood to be temporary and were not an issue.

The "billboard" cars involved in the ICC ruling were almost universally from private lease fleets, but the railroads were compelled to take the cars... and there was the basis for the complaint.

Further back in the cited book points out that the ruling did not prohibit owner's or lessor's names or emblems, only advertisements for products. However, not wanting to be involved in a federal case with the ICC, most lease fleets became very plain looking on the eve of WWII. After the war they became more colorful again, but only with corporate logos, not references to specific product.

Folks who've watched Antiques Road Show - which is probably everyone here - will have some understanding of valuation of antiques. One thing the appraisers always point out is that restored objects are worth far less than ones in original condition. I imagine that rule applies to an object like this car. The patina and original paint add value. The problem is, while it's easy to store an antique toy in a climate controlled environment, how can you afford to store a collection of giant rail cars indoors? Most of the grass roots, railfan-curated, museums don't have the resources.

Another great thing about a car in good, original condition like this one is that it has the power to transport you back in time. Repainted cars are soulless, dead objects by comparison. We have examples of restored wood reefers at museums in CA, IL, and PA. The stenciling is perfect, and in some cases was applied painstakingly over the span of weeks by a museum volunteer with an artist's brush. From old films of cars being painted, the lettering was actually slammed out by painters with stencils in a matter of seconds. The original object preserves that original factory workmanship and technique. So you can look an original car like this reefer and it just seems to speak to you and you learn a lot from it. Even wear and tear tells you something about the hard service it was in. Repainted cars just don't have the ability to do that.

Whatever happens to this car, I guess we're lucky just to have it around today. I won't condemn the museum if they feel the need to paint it to protect it.

While I don't have an authoritative answer to the legality of owners' ads on privately owned rail cars, refrigerator and other kinds, I do note that recent Association of American Railroads' Interchange Rules that ban ads do not apply to private cars, or to the lading on open sided cars. For instance, lumber transported on flat cars sometimes has ads painted on the sides of the boards, or on the artificial wrapping around the bundles. Intermodal trailers and containers often have what look like billboard type ads.
A.A.R. rules are rarely less lenient than Federal Regulations and Laws, maybe this is an exception? Was the cited Interstate Commerce Commission Ruling revised to cover only Railroad owned cars, or to also cover hopper and tank cars? Is it still in effect? Can you disclose the actual designation of the Ruling, so we may find it in official Government sources?
How did the Reading Railroad get away with advertising Famous Reading Anthracite coal on its hoppers and United States Savings Bonds on its boxcars?

There is a real problem with outdoor preservation, and it is called "the SUN". Deterioration of painted surfaces is primarily due to the sun's ultraviolet light that degrades the polymeric paint binder. Any clear coat applied will be at the mercy of the condition of the surface beneath it. If the paint is loose and ready to fail or the unpainted and weathered wooden surface on the car is in poor condition, a clear coat will not help and may actually accelerate the failure of the original paint. Any clear coat that may be applied to an artifact like this will only slow the degradation if it does not actually shorten the life of the original painted surface due to physical incompatibilities. And the weathering of the clear coat will present its own problems when it must be renewed. Shellac, Lacquers, oils and varnishes will not do the job.

Back in the day the outsides of wooden passenger cars were painted and then varnished because the varnish was considered sacrificial and could be renewed without damaging the original paint job. But the varnish only lasted a few years before it needed to be redone and the entire car had to be repainted regularly. Automotive finishes are the same today. The clear coat is especially formulated to be ultraviolet resistant to protect the color coats underneath and provide a high gloss to the system for the expected life of the car, in excess of 20 years. But this performance comes at a substantially higher cost. And we know how expensive this finish system is when we get the bill from the automotive body shop!

My understanding of the 'billboard reefer' issue, from reading about it years ago, is that it had to so with the product of one shipper being shipped in cars that were privately owned or controlled by a competitor. I.e. Hormel didn't want their products shipped in Swift reefers, or vice versa. Coal from a Reading mine being shipped over the RDG in RDG hoppers was apparently another matter. Perhaps I'm over simplifying it here, though.

This was an ICC action, not AAR, as it had to do with rate regulation. Apparently, it specifically pertained to refrigerator cars. As far as I can find, the above referenced book does not contain a reference to an ICC docket number... wait, here it is: "Interstate Commerce Commission Reports, Investigation and Suspension Docket No. 3887, see also Use of Privately Owned Refrigerator Cars, 201 ICC Reports, 1934."

The book also reprints verbatim a three page article that appeared in the July, 1934 Railway Age discussing the ruling. In reality, the advertising was just a side issue to the railroad's major complaint, which was unfair competition by the private car owners. The pertinent part:

"The purpose of the amendments is to prevent the practice that has been growing in recent years by which private and railroad controlled car lines have been bidding against each other to place cars in the exclusive service of shippers at reduced rentals, thus displacing the use of railroad-owned refrigerator cars, and enabling the shippers to profit from the mileage earnings of the cars. Such allowances, the commission finds, are unlawful rebates and concessions."

If none of this makes sense, keep in mind this is government regulation, so we shouldn't expect it to. But if you remember that at the time, when a shipper supplied his own car, the railroads had to pay the shipper mileage for its use, the issue at hand becomes clearer.

Concerning the Indiana RR Museum, do they have a 10' tall x 34' long interior wall? If possible salvage the better side (maybe also an end if there is room) and mount it indoors and replace with new wood on the car, and repaint as it would have appeared in use.

I know this would not be the cheapest, but would be the best of both worlds. Either way this is a great find and I'm happy to hear it will be preserved, especially with the local connection.

Rich C.

The reason polyurethane was proposed is that it blocks UV.
Really though, the car just needs to go indoors. I realize there are some business and real estate issues that will make that a real challenge. The barn which is at ITM is not open to the public.