For a number of years now, I have been writing occasional posts in this blog about both information and issues relating to waybills, in both prototype and model form. (To find previous ones, use “waybills” as a search term in the search box at right.) A recent example was this one: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2024/04/waybills-part-114-managing-fleet.html . This may be a daunting backlog; a guide to the first 100 of these posts is here: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2022/11/waybills-part-100-guide.html .
Today I want to share yet another source of prototype information on this topic. A single example is shown below. This was part of an approximately annual issue of “question and answer” format from the journal, Traffic World, and was issued by the publisher of Traffic World, the Traffic Services Corp., in Washington, D.C. The magazine was published from 1907 until 2011 or thereabouts.
This is a 6 x 9-inch book, hardbound, and contains 155 pages. The points made in it stem from question-answer pairs in the magazine between July 1964 and June 1965, and it was issued in 1965. How long these volumes continued to be published, I don’t know, but at least until 1976.
Many of the questions, it must be said, relate to minutiae of the rules, and often turn on extremely microscopic examination of Interstate Commerce Commission rules and other authorities of a legalistic bent. Those, naturally, make extremely dry reading, and might be ideal for perusal when you are having trouble getting to sleep.
But there are nevertheless gems in here. Here’s one that isn’t too long or too detailed (adjacent material was removed from the page to focus attention on the point I want to discuss). I will comment below. You can click on the image to enlarge it, to help read the text. The topic is routing.
This example makes very clear that priority in routing lies with the shipper, even if that route results in higher rates than some other route. But it also makes the interesting point that if the shipper has not designated the route, the railroad is obliged to route via the route of lowest rate.
It is long-established dogma among modelers that the railroad would route a car so as to traverse company rails as far as possible, and no doubt that was the desire; but such routing must not be at a higher rate than another approved routing, even if resulting in lower mileage on the originating railroad.
Here is another example, this one unfortunately longer, and again, I will comment below. This entry extends over two pages, but a lot of it is citations of authorities, which can be skipped for our purposes. It has to do with leased cars.
The key point in this question runs from the bottom paragraph in the first column, to the completion of that paragraph in the second column. In essence, it asks whether an empty specialized or leased car, moving under a car order to return it to a shipping point, generates demurrage before actually being placed for loading at the shipper. Evidently the railroad involved said yes, and the shipper said no.
The answer is interesting, as it reminds us of the railroad distinction between “actual placement,” that is, the car placed at the shipper’s dock or loading door, and “constructive placement,” meaning the car is nearby in the same town on a track that can be considered an “off-spot” (for example, if there is no space at the shipper’s dock). If the latter, the railroad must furnish the shipper with notice of the constructive placement. Otherwise, there is no demurrage.
I don't see simple ways these points could be utilized during a model railroad operating session, but they do suggest things to keep in mind for such aspects as waybill contents, for example with routing. There are so many prototype examples of indirect routing that it might be considered commonplace. And the railroad would try hard to avoid off-spots, certainly not accepting them for “crew convenience.” Those are things we can keep in mind when striving for realistic operation.
Tony Thompson
