toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Yeah, my immediate response was to laugh. The ERIE wanted the CONSIGNEE to shift the remaining load in the car at their own time and expense, so ERIE wouldn’t get freight claims? As a consignee, my response would be to call the ERIE agent and tell him to get his butt, and his crew, over to fix the load in the car himself. I wonder how many folks actually did as asked.
Bruce F. Smith
"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."
On Jan 6, 2020, at 2:38 PM, Edward <edb8381@...
Perhaps the best comment is that it's applied common sense!
A lot of people who loaded / unloaded freight in rail cars or tractor trailers in the past cared little about how it was done without specific instructions.
If nothing is said, its piled in the door slammed shut and off it goes.
This was sometimes so with lcl cars.
While they were usually loaded with care at a terminal facility, it was in unloading shipments at various receivers along the way that problems could arise.
Receivers cared about their stuff on arrival.
But not much concern for other shippers' goods in the same car if it had to move on to another delivery point.
Re-organizing a load like that takes man power and time.
Both are expensive.
Erie is trying to appeal to a receiver's better side, to help avoid damaged freight claims.