Conrail Commodities, chapter 2 (automotive)

It wasn’t that the claims got higher, it was the theshold for damage by the manufacturers got lower. Used to be that 4% damage was OK (I think the number was 4%). Pushed by the import brands, Detroit pushed the RRs to reduce claims and speed shipments. This led to the current network of dedicated rack trains with flat switching (or racks moving in intermodal trains rather than merchandise trains) and the rise of mixing centers.

A secondary factor was the decline of body on frame and the rise of unibody cars. They were much more likely to sustain damage from the ties downs on a hard coupling.

Don:

4% claim ratio was ok?

That is very high. Back in the LTL days, most claim ratios were well under 1%.

ed

Ed: You get what you pay for.

RWM

RWM:

Good point…what is the claim ratio of railroads these days?

Understanding of course, the ratio went up considerable during the past week.

Seriously, does anyone know how the railroads handle risk management?

ed

Taylor has a fascinating book…has anyone else read it?

Got my copy in December 1997, and I go back and read through it a few times a year. I wish other railroads were featured in a similar way.

DPJ