To: | CBQ@yahoogroups.com |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: [CBQ] Re: Grain-Hauling Boxcars |
From: | "Jpslhedgpeth@aol.com [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com> |
Date: | Mon, 6 Mar 2017 12:43:52 -0500 |
Authentication-results: | mta1005.groups.mail.ne1.yahoo.com from=aol.com; domainkeys=neutral (no sig); from=mx.aol.com; dkim=pass (ok) |
Delivered-to: | unknown |
Delivered-to: | archives@nauer.org |
Delivered-to: | mailing list CBQ@yahoogroups.com |
Dkim-signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoogroups.com; s=echoe; t=1488822583; bh=nds1DiKJrCCwBsH3CIFtKn8nUZPfVcglkRGeRhbWypA=; h=To:From:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:Date:Subject:Reply-To:From:Subject; b=WSOox2ZV2bcD3QJV/AtMdqgiaCaF+PEHKEdb/2mDrKvCHvmJiNHyQ08jAM9ccAlqawgF3gP42m/290lMcLviw/hAtXZ2icZBnwSA8StQ6kCqIJnQqCBAJ6C2C7D1L4JTpBUoTZTwz1mXB9kzfiyYzhvt7ojLEXYYxHK4MgZf0go= |
List-id: | <CBQ.yahoogroups.com> |
List-unsubscribe: | <mailto:CBQ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com> |
Mailing-list: | list CBQ@yahoogroups.com; contact CBQ-owner@yahoogroups.com |
Reply-to: | CBQ@yahoogroups.com |
Sender: | CBQ@yahoogroups.com |
You may be right George..but even after 8 years as Manager FReight Claims for Rock Island I never ever heard of this "rule"...That may be one of those "arcane" rules which sat there in the background and nobody ever paid attention to it...Claims were filed on the basis of any difference between the "alleged loading weight and the unloading weight. The claim adjuster just sat down with the claimant and adjusted the claims as best he could on the basis of the information at hand. Also I earlier mentioned that loading weights at "country elevators" were little more than a guess....Someone mentioned that "theoretically" cars used for grain loading would have the "load limit" indicated on the wall of the car by a line again "theoretically" when the load came up to the line.."ipso-facto" this was the weight which the shipper showed on the bill of lading and any difference between that weight and the unloading weight was the basis for the claim...
That's why claims filed on boxcar grain shipment and, in the absence of any leakage were "compromised" to some degree...said "degree" based on the negotiating ability of the railroad adjuster versus the claimant...
That's how it was in the "real world" of freight claims "back in the day on the Rock Island.
Pete
-----Original Message-----
From: George LaPray agrail.george@gmail.com [CBQ] <CBQ@yahoogroups.com> To: CBQ <CBQ@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Mon, Mar 6, 2017 11:15 am Subject: [CBQ] Re: Grain-Hauling Boxcars The ICC had specific regulations covering grain loss claims, these included a "shrinkage allowance" of 1/8 of 1% of the loading weight, later increased to 1/4 of 1%, applied to all bulk grain shipments regardless of equipment type, boxcar or covered hopper. When the ICC morphed into the STB these regulations were carried over so they still apply in 2017. The "shrinkage allowance" was designed to allow for the natural shrinkage of grain when stored and handled, loss of moisture and grain turned to dust in handling, as well as eliminate the very smallest of claims where the cost of filing and settling the claims greatly exceeded the claimed loss.
George,
old railroad grain guy
__._,_.___ Posted by: jpslhedgpeth@aol.com __,_._,___ |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | RE: [CBQ] Painting question for a friend, llarryo1 Llarryo1@aol.com [CBQ] |
---|---|
Next by Date: | [CBQ] Grain loading procedures, Jpslhedgpeth@aol.com [CBQ] |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [CBQ] Re: Grain-Hauling Boxcars, larry.graus@opc.com [CBQ] |
Next by Thread: | Re: [CBQ] Re: Grain-Hauling Boxcars, qutlx1@aol.com [CBQ] |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |