How are freight cars routed?

[Falcon48]

This is a post from the thread mentioned by Paul which seems relevant to the present discussion:

_______________________________

Posted by Paul of Covington on Thursday, April 30, 2015 12:04 PM

   Speaking of a kettle of fish...

   Back in the '60's, a distant cousin who had retired from the RR made a little extra money by checking shipping charges.   As I recall, he said the railroads were required by regulations to charge the cost of the least expensive route, no matter what the actual route was.   Apparently, the shippers considered it worthwhile to employ him.

 

                                                                                                               __________________

 What this is probably referring to is an old tariff provision called the "open aggregates" rule.  This wasn't an ICC requirement, but a rule adopted by the railroads themselves through their rate bureaus.  What it basically said is that, if you could construct a rate over any route between two points by a combination of local rates that was lower than the through rate, that rate would defeat any higher through rates over all routes between those points.  It was typically employed by rate sharks, who would try to construct a (lower) combination of local rates over a route (typically a route shippers would never use), which would then defeat the (higher) through rate over the routes the shipper was actually using. 

The ICC requirement behind this rule was the so called "long and short haul clause", which prohibited a railroad from charging a higher rate from an origin to an intermediate point on a route than the rate from the origin to a more distant point on the route.  The ICC rule only applied to a specific route.  The railroads themselves created the requirement that, when the through rate over one route was "defeated" by a lower combination of local rates, the lower rate also defeated higher through rates on all routes between the original and destination.  The reason for this was the desire for rate equalization.  This all went away after the 1980 Staggers Act (good riddance).

Again, ah for the good old days (or maybe not).   

[m sharp]

Sorry about that. I edited the original post to include the origin city, Battle Creek, MI. Mike

[Falcon48]

My experience is that "open routing" normally resulted in routing options over far more interchanges that you see see today with equal rates for all available routes.  The main reason for the equal rates was the use of rate bureaus to collectively make rates.  Another reason was various kinds of tariff rules that would automatically equalize rates in many cases.  There were also numerous ICC rate prescriptions and other requirements which effectively required rate equalization. 

466lex is correct that routing was a big issue before the ICC.  The objective of the game was to secure the longest possible route (which would maximize a railroad's share of the through rate), But the game wasn't usually played by rate competition.

There were several factors that changed the game in the late 1970's and early 1980's.  Among them were severe restrictions on rate bureau ratemaking, the ICC's removal of rate prescriptions and other requirements (that had the effect of requiring rate equalization), and the 1980's Staggers Act, which legalized contract rates and led to widespread cancellation of routing options 

[tree68]

MidlandMike

NYC/PC also served Battle Creek in 1968, and could have routed the car to northern NJ. 

If I'm reading the maps right, both railroads served the plant, although the NYC side looks to have had more trackage.

[MidlandMike]

NYC/PC also served Battle Creek in 1968, and could have routed the car to northern NJ.

[466lex]

Status as originating carrier and as car supplier were (and still are) crucial factors in routing. Kellogg needed quality cars (food) and was probably served by a clearly defined pool of box cars. Railroads would commit cars only in proportion to their ability to participate in the traffic. Typically, the serving carrier was the major source of capacity and was typically entitled to its "long haul" route. Further, the serving carrier would only have agreed to routes with connections that were clearly profitable to it. The pool contributions would have reflected those realities.

The major roads were "notorious" for restrictive routing policies, assuring long, profitable routing. Regionals participated where it made economic sense for both the "major" and the smaller carrier. "Open routing" was by agreement only, and via routes that served functions such as diversion and reconsignment. Rates and charges were typically higher via such routes than via competitive routes that handled most traffic.

It is true that "routing" was a contentious subject before the ICC, and both regionals and shippers would sometimes fight the majors, but it was usually a losing battle, at least post-Transportation Act of 1958.

[PNWRMNM]

This question would make more sense if you told us the origin point. Falcon 48 is correct the car would be routed as the shipper specified on the Bill of Lading, subject to there being a rate published via that route.

If your origin was Battle Creek MI, I very much doubt that there would have been a rate via Chicago due to the excess mileage involved. The other thing you did not specify is if the consignee was open to reciprocal switching. If not open, then car would need to arrive in the general area via EL. Making the assumption no reciprocal switching, I suspect car would come to EL at Buffalo NY. West of Buffalo my knowledge of reasonable routes, that is, those over which the lowest applicable rate would apply, is too limited to even guess. If CN went to Buffalo, then best service would likely have been GTW-CN-Buffalo-EL, since GTW and CN were extensions of each other.

Mac 

[Paul of Covington]

   I think you might be interested in this discussion from a while back:

http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/246870.aspx

[Falcon48]

In 1968, the car would probably move by whatever routing was designated by the customer.  In those days, "open routing" was the norm.  A shipper could route a shipment via any number of routes and interchanges and the same rate generally applied regardless of the route chosen (this was also the era in which rates were collectively established through "rate bureaus", so all competing routes would usually take the same rate)   A shipper wouldn't necessarily concentrate its shipments on the "best" route.  It was very common in those days for shippers to split their traffic over multiple routes and carriers.  It was all very different from today.

[m sharp]

In this scenario:  It's 1968, and the consignor is Kellogg's Co., in Battle Creek, MI, which has a boxcar of cereal loaded for consignee xxx in New Jersey, located on the Erie Lackawanna.  Would that boxcar be routed westward on the Grand Trunk Western first, interchanged in Chicago, only to go back eastward on the EL?  Or, would that car more likely go more directly (fewer miles) eastward, yet requiring more interchanging?  Is time a big factor on merchandise that probably is not considered "hot".  If it was time-critical, it probably would have shipped via truck.  What do you think about a car going "out of it's way", like the Chicago route?  

Mike