Tag Archives: detention and demurrage

‘Insult to injury’: Record rail demurrage adds to shipper costs

This article spells out some of the issues in demurrage charges rail lines are charging for cargoes that are not being removed from their premises.

Demurrage is charged, say the rail lines, when cargo is left at a rail terminal beyond a specified number of days. Charges vary by railroad. The chart they provide, reproduced below from Supply Chain Dive, shows how the seven Class I rails charge demurrage rates.

How individual railroads charge for demurrage varies
RailroadRange of daily demurrage fees
BNSF$150 to $500, depending on container dwell time and facility
CN$100 to $450, depending on container dwell time and facility
CP$75 to $350, depending on container dwell time, facility and who owns the equipment
CSX$100 to $500, depending on container dwell time, facility and whether the equipment is for domestic or international use
KCS$100 per day after free time expires, in all cases
NS$100 to $300, depending on container dwell time and facility
UP$100 to $225, depending on container dwell time, facility and whether the equipment is for domestic or international use

SOURCE: Letters in response to the STB, as linked. Union Pacific did not disclose its specific fees in the letter, but its rates are available online.

Shippers complain that sometimes the demurrage is due to the fact that rail lines have canceled trains that they previously were running. The shift by all of the Class I rails to some form of Precision Scheduled Railroading (PSR), a system of lean operations in which only the movements required are made, is responsible. If a shipper delivers a cargo, but then the train is canceled, who is to blame?

And it’s understood that regardless of what they say, all of these rail lines have adjusted capacity in line with the principles of PSR, even if they won’t call it that. But setting capacity based on experience is not easy when we are experiencing not only a surge in customers, but also many abnormal conditions throughout supply chains that disrupt the standard patterns. Decisions about PSR, such as reducing the number of locomotives or yard staff or engineers, are based on forecasts, and forecasts are always wrong; so it’s a question of whether the rails have left enough slack in the system to handle the variation in the rest of the system. The answer appears not.

One particularly vexing problem with the current system is being addressed by the Surface Transportation Board (STB) which governs rail operation in the US. In the past, demurrage was viewed as something infrequent that did not matter much, and railroads did not develop systems to capture and bill for it in a regularized way. But now, it’s essential that the accounting for it be accurate and transparent, and that bills be sent in a way that shippers can handle digitally and determine the facts from their side about each incident. More accurate and standardized billing is key. That’s what the STB wants to achieve by regulating the nature of demurrage charges by rails.

Already in place at the end of 2020 are new rules requiring bills to be sent to shippers rather than intermediaries, and

“provide machine-readable access to minimum information on billing, including details on the billing cycle covered by the invoice, the car involved, the commodity being shipped, and railroads’ original estimated time of arrival for the cargo in question”

Supply Chain Dive, ‘Insult to injury’: Record rail demurrage adds to shipper costs | Supply Chain Dive, Jan 12, 2020.

As expected, some rails complain this will lead to more litigation and questioning. Of course! But in fact no one wants the delays that cause demurrage, and it’s in everyone’s interest to understand exactly what happened to cause the problem. The new billing standard will clarify a lot, and get into shippers’ hands so they can do something about the problem.

I think it is a big step forward in the rail arena. I wish it were as clear in ocean shipping, in the port and terminal arena.

Published Jan. 12, 2022

Sarah Zimmerman Associate Editor

Edwin Lopez Lead Editor

‘Insult to injury’: Record rail demurrage adds to shipper costs | Supply Chain Dive

How to sue a carrier for delays, blanked sailings and D&D overcharges

It’s not going to be easy to sue a carrier for delays and blanked sailings. But whatever your taste, you have to document everything. The author, a lawyer, points to many types of documentation required to substantiate your claim.

I believe that the threat of many suits may well be useful to annoy carriers. They’re less likely to engage in reprehensible behavior like blanking if they know a bunch of shippers are going to be suing them. Those little lawsuits are annoying because each has to be dealt with somehow, and if the plaintiffs (shippers) are persistent, the annoyance may be enough to get the carrier’s attention.

Now there are two ways that attention can go. One way is that the carrier offers to settle and doesn’t complain too much. This may be a sign they care about your future business– at least a bit– or that they are taking a generous attitude toward customer service. The other way is hardball. They may deny everything and threaten you back. That is a sign they don’t want your future business, and just want to dispose of this claim to be able to tell authorities they have dealt with it. In this case, you probably won’t get anything, unless you have deep pockets for the law, and can pursue a case for which you are unlikely to recover your expenses.

And whatever action you take, don’t expect prompt resolution. One thing companies do is try to string out a case hoping the plaintiff loses interest or has a need to move on and not spend the time. That manages to get a lot of complaints off their back.

However, company lawyers are expensive too, and a stream of annoying lawsuits is not how the company wants its lawyers spending their time. So harassing the company with a lawsuit might get you some attention.

By Tiffany Comprés 07/12/2021

How to sue a carrier for delays, blanked sailings and D&D overcharges – The Loadstar

Trucking trade group to Gov. Newsom: Enforce law on port fees

California law AB 45 prevents ports and terminals from charging detention and demurrage fees for containers not picked up or empties not delivered when the facilities prevent drivers from picking up or delivering.

Sometimes, the authorities or facilities institute sudden rules changes that prevent delivery of empty containers or prevent pickup of specific cargo because of hours or appointments. These rules are troublesome and cost time for drivers. And often the drivers or their firms are the ones paying the fees.

The contention is that the ports are by their own actions forcing expenses on the trucking firms and drivers.

The law, if enforced, would keep ports and terminals from charging these fees. But how to enforce the law is not altogether clear.

Clarissa Hawes, Senior Editor, Investigations and Enterprise Friday, Novvember 5, 2021

Trucking trade group to Gov. Newsom: Enforce law on port fees – FreightWaves