opinion: PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY v. TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, C.I.O., et al., Appellants.
  No. 13260.
  United States Court of Appeals ' Third Circuit.
  Argued June 24, 1960.
  Decided June 30, 1960.
  Asher W. Schwartz, New York City (Charles A. Lord, Richter, Lord & Levy, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellants.
  Robert M. Landis, Philadelphia, Pa.,. Barnes, Dechert, Price, Myers & Rhoads, Philadelphia, Pa. (Richard N. Clatten-burg, Warren D. Mulloy, Philadelphia,. Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
  Before McLAUGHLIN, KALODNER. and STALEY, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM.
  The May 28, 1960 order of the district-court allowed a preliminary injunction “until final hearing and judgment, or until further order of this court (defendants, upon good cause shown, may apply for and obtain a modification of this order).”
  Appellants argue at length in their brief that the district judge, in refusing to specifically state in his order that the' injunction would be vacated on July 19,. I960, exceeded his jurisdiction.
  The above quoted language is the customary phrasing of this type of order. There is nothing improper about it. Nor does it present warrant for any inference' that the district judge will not deal with this matter in accordance with his duty as the occasion arises. The application was plainly premature. Inter alia, as was vividly developed at oral argument, there is nothing to prevent appellants, from immediately taking steps to proceed to final hearing and judgment.
  The order of the district court will be affirmed.
  . The original expiration date as to the procedures outlined by the Railway Labor Board. On June 24, 1960 at the oral argument of this appeal it appeared that the said date had already been extended five days to July 24,1960.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
  Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
  When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 
  
  Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "transportation". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.
choices: railroad boat, shipping shipping freight, UPS, flying tigers airline truck, armored cars other unclear