Re: [CBQ] Boxcar grain handlling

["Jpslhedgpeth@aol.com [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>]

Exactly right Doug...This is something that I have always posited without actually seeing anything in writing but I instinctively knew that was how it would have to be...Under  the old Bill Of Lading method of doing bidness the carrier was, for all intents and purposes "guilty on all counts" with certain exceptions most of which could not be proved.  HENCE..the carriers just "Caved'...in all of the questionable cases  

Doug I'm sure that the "enlightened" railroad management in today's deregulated environment  would have negotiated most loss and damage matters away unless, as you pointed out, other than obvious cases ie wrecks.

Pete

-----Original Message-----
From: 'Douglas Harding' doug.harding@iowacentralrr.org [CBQ] <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>
To: CBQ <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Mar 8, 2017 10:46 am
Subject: RE: [CBQ] Boxcar grain handlling

 

Kirby it have more to do with the shipping contracts. In today’s modern deregulated world, railroads can set their rates via direct agreements with the shipper. Such agreements may restrict or even eliminate loss claims, except in the case of a wreck/derailment/car failure.

 

Doug Harding

www.iowacentralrr.org

 

From: CBQ@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CBQ@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2017 9:30 AM
To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [CBQ] Boxcar grain handlling

 

 

A couple of the respondents talked about how few claims there are today. Is this because so few of the grain hoppers are owned by the railroad? I know most tank cars are not railroad owned.

Kirby Lambert

__._,_.___

---

Posted by: jpslhedgpeth@aol.com

---

Visit Your Group

• New Members 3

• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

__,_._,___