Topics

Erie RR Notice On Stop-Off Cars


Bob Chaparro
 

Erie RR Notice On Stop-Off Cars

Any comments on this?

Bob Chaparro

Hemet, CA


Edward
 

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.

Ed Bommer


Bruce Smith
 

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.

Regards

Bruce


Bruce F. Smith            

Auburn, AL

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."




On Jan 6, 2020, at 2:38 PM, Edward <edb8381@...> wrote:

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.

Ed Bommer


 

Bruce,

I thought that was odd too; to suggest the first consignee would re-position the load.  What I have seen in other sources were bulkheads made from dunnage to separate the parts of the loads and keep them from shifting when the first were removed.

Regards,

Mike Aufderheide


Dennis Storzek
 

On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 01:10 PM, Michael Aufderheide wrote:
I thought that was odd too; to suggest the first consignee would re-position the load.  What I have seen in other sources were bulkheads made from dunnage to separate the parts of the loads and keep them from shifting when the first were removed.
Although, since the first consignee had to call the local agent to apply new car seals, the railroad did have some leverage... don't re-stack or block the load, and we won't seal the car, leaving consignee No. 1 responsible. In reality, it was the shipper's responsibility to properly block/ bulkhead the load; this seems to indicate that the ERIE was having problems with this, and was trying to push it off on the consignees.

Dennis Storzek