Re:RE: Re: (erielack) EL empty car waybill

["Janet & Randy Brown" <jananran_@_mymailstation.com>]

I believe that the "record rule" applied to "assigned" cars, where everyone involved was willing to share the cost of returning an empty car to its exact point of origin with no chance of any revenue for anyone. (Railroads "assigned" some cars to customers for their exclusive use based on volume and the owning road's participation in the revenue producing line-haul. Only rarely did assigned cars participate in an arrangement where they carried a load for part or all of the return trip; most spent exactly half their lives running empty).  And, yes -- there must have been some sort of documentation.

"Free-runners", on the other hand, were subject to the car-service rule provisions that they go back to the ownerat the closest interchange, or toward the owner under load. And even here, even empty, there had to be some kind of written order to tell the yard and train crews what to do with them.

Randy Brown
- --------------------------------------------------------------
Randy,

Elsewhere in this thread, it was stated that the car would return by it's precise return route, to the extent that when an empty was received, a piece of its outbound waybill would be retrieved from a "cubbyhole" where it had been kept while the car was completing its travels.  If a car were returned at an intermediate legitimate interchange back to the same road, would that not constitute a violation of the return by outbound route rules?

BTW, Gordon, thank you for this useful definition.

One other thing:  There is a man in my model railroad club who insists that in the 50s and early 60s, that an empty would move with no waybill whatsoever.  Most of this thread has been in the 60s and later, but is he correct?

SGL


	The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
	http://EL-List.railfan.net/
	To Unsubscribe: http://Lists.Railfan.net/erielackunsub.html

------------------------------

End of EL Mail List Digest V3 #3327
***********************************