Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
Tim O'Connor wrote:
Tony, all I meant was that the shipper chose the AVAILABLE route. Not all possible routes were available, and many of those that were available, were circuitous. That was my point -- a railroad did not have to take part in a tariff if they didn't want to.That's quite true. In fact, the railroad was empowered to REJECT a route they saw as too circuitous, though if the shipper threatened to file a complaint with the ICC, they often would back down. The ICC was believed by railroaders to always favor shippers.
The NP and other railroads collaborated to create weird routes for loads of lumber that would attract this traffic to their lines. The destinations of such tariffs were in the middle of nowhere -- so the shipper wanted plenty of time to re-consign the car before it arrived there. If it did arrive, they would have to payI understand the story, but it seems weird. Perishable diversions on PFE were almost entirely via real routings and major cities (Kansas City, St. Louis, Chicago, Cleveland, etc.). One part of a perishable diversion (I don't know about lumber) was to hold a specified number of days at a designated point, though of course with perishables you didn't want to stretch too far <g>.
Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, email@example.com
Publishers of books on railroad history