Whoops!

In the "that'll buff right out" category ...

http://newstalkkgvo.com/montana-rail-li ... ver-audio/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

More like reject, return to shipper,damaged and unusable for those airplane shells,that 1 heck of a cargo claim!

So here's a question ...

Setting aside railroad equiment (like locomotives), what's the most expensive claim from a derailment?

I'd have to guess auto-racks, or perhaps the train carrying the shuttle boosters ...

Until this one that is ... this has the potential to cost Boeing several tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars.

(Boeing owns the company that makes the 737 shells, so all that labor is a write-off now, too)

Most likely MRL is on the hook for the repair/replacement of the shells unless a defective part on the flat car was the cause,
then the car owner is on the hook.
This falls under "damaged in transit" catagory.
That would include the tank car owner if the tank car was the cause.

All six 737 fuselages ended up scrapped on site.

That's a pretty big monetary loss.

(Chances are very good, the airline customers notified Boeing they would be refusing those particular aircraft)

Boeing may have "written off" the shells due to the wreck,the process to pull the shells up the river bank
didn't help,or winding up in the water as well.
Some Scrap yard got a windfall from the high quaility metal that was scrapped there.

Backshophoss wrote:Most likely MRL is on the hook for the repair/replacement of the shells unless a defective part on the flat car was the cause,
then the car owner is on the hook.
This falls under "damaged in transit" catagory.
That would include the tank car owner if the tank car was the cause.

Under the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act, MRL is on the hook to whoever paid the freight charges (presumably Boeing) regardless of fault. MRL can then seek to recover from anyone else if they can show liability; however, if a defect on a flat car is shown to be the cause, MRL will be hung up by the fact that they inspected the car when they received it in interchange, and presumably at various points subsequently. As a matter of fact, now that I think of it, BNSF is on the hook if Boeing chooses to file the claim with them, and they in turn would have to recover from MRL. That provision is primarily intended to apply in cases of concealed damage, where the point at which the damage occurred cannot be determined -- hardly the case here, where it's very clear where the damage occurred. However, I think that under Carmack the shipper still has the right to file a claim with any carrier party to the route, whichever is more convenient for the shipper, leaving that carrier to recover from one or more of the other carriers.