CAN YOU ALL STOP BICKERING ABOUT JUNCTION MERGING.

Shuttle Railways, why did you debit 1.7 million RLD from our account? You are only owed 768,000 rillies in accordance with the trackage rate schedule.

Dear Sirs,

On 3 March a switch assembly in the south throat at Caroline Central failed, disabling the southbound beam and damaging the adjacent stator section.

Single-line working was introduced on the northbound beam for the period 3–8 March inclusive, a total of six days.

During that period your client continued to offer and sell through tickets on the affected spine services at full fare. Some 60 services could not be operated as sold.

Our client, at short notice and on its own path allocation, operated substituted services between Caroline Central and the southern spine, carrying 19,240 of your client's ticketed passengers.

On 2 April our client entered against your client, as it was entitled to do, the Market Premium referable to the substituted services, computed at RLD 49.20 per carried passenger: RLD 946,608.

Your client has also not reimbursed Caroline terminal charges of RLD 38,400, owing in respect of the substituted services originating and terminating in Caroline and paid by our client to the City of Caroline.

Our client is willing to attend a senior officers' conference within the 90-day window at any time convenient to your client, and proposes the Secretariat be copied to the record.

Yours faithfully,

for and on behalf of SHUTTLE RAILWAYS

General Counsel

In other words, while your shit fucking blew up, we took on your customers voluntarily and should be paid for it.

We object to this claim. Applicable MRC Regulation, excerpt from paragraph 4 of Schedule 7 (Revenue Division and Clearing):

Where a Marketing Member performs the Journey and in performing it uses the Guideway of another Member, that other Member (the Host Member) shall be entitled to the Access Rate in respect of every Train-Kilometre run by the Service Train upon its Guideway, and to no other sum in respect of that use.

ISŜT is the Marketing Member on account of having sold and marketed the fares. Therefore, Shuttle Railways must hand over 946,608 RLD that it yoinked from our clearing account. We do not hold in dispute the 768,000.00 base fee charged.

Excuse me? Did you just skip over the part where it says "performing it"?

Paragraph 9:

9.1 The Market Premium in respect of a Journey accrues to the Member performing the Journey.

9.2 Where a Journey is performed by two or more Members acting jointly and under a single published Timetabled Service, the Market Premium shall be apportioned between them in proportion to the Train-Kilometres run by each respectively in the performance of the Journey.

9.3 The Members may in writing agree a different apportionment, and any such agreement shall be recorded with the Secretariat.

9.4 No Member which does not perform the Journey is entitled to any part of the Market Premium.

9.5 The Market Premium shall be settled through the Clearing House, and the Clearing House Rules shall apply to its settlement.

Shuttle Railways is the Member which performed the Journey, and therefore we are entitled to the full Market Premium.

The Maglev Railway Compact is a lot like a dysfunctional family. Sure, passengers don't really notice anything's wrong. But internally, the MRC is a den of coalitions, competition, backstabbing, committees, rules-lawyering and bureaucracy.

Unfortunately for us, unlike our world's American high-speed rail federations, the MRC works.

ISŜT is the Marketing Member. And again:

4.3 For the avoidance of doubt, in the case described in this paragraph the Host Member has no interest in the Market Premium, and the Market Premium is retained by the Marketing Member.

In the case described in this paragraph!

Are you arguing in bad faith? It is obvious that the sum debited is correct according to the very passages you are citing!

This dispute hinges on whether Shuttle Railways "performs" the Journey. As stated:

1.1 In this Schedule, unless the context otherwise requires:

...

(c) "Carriage" means the movement of passengers upon a Guideway by a Service Train;

...

(f) "Journey" means the carriage of a passenger from an origin station to a destination station for a single fare;

Carriage is the designated term for movement of passengers. If "performing" is somehow a type of Carriage, then that begs the question of why this new word "performing" was written and not "carrying" or anything deriving from the word Carriage!

Furthermore, a Journey is defined in reference to a single fare. A Journey is the actual thing purchased by the customer, defined as a trip on one fare from origin to destination. Whoever the Journey was purchased from, here being ISŜT, is the "performer" of the Journey. While Shuttle Railways did indeed do Carriage of passengers, it did not "perform" a Journey. Therefore, Shuttle Railways, not being the performer but rather the Host Member, has no interest in the Market Premium.

What.

What??????

Sorry, it's just facts. Deal with it (and return our money)

Absolutely not!

There is no way that performing is some kind of status granted to the Marketing Member. Performing, not having been defined as well as not being in uppercase, should be interpreted by its plain natural-language reading. Under your idea of performance, the following text would be entirely superfluous, as the Marketing Member would be by definition performing:

4.1 Where a Marketing Member performs the Journey and in performing it uses the Guideway of another Member

The Marketing Member did not "perform" the Journey here. The most accurate reading of Schedule 7 that performing a Journey requires the Marketing Member's Service Train to go over the Host Member's lines.

Where is it stated in Schedule 7 that the Marketing Member must own the Service Train?

It's obvious!

It really isn't.

Governance is not aware of this MRC dispute, as it is not aware of many things - its functions are limited by convention, and it dares not overstep. But if it knew of this, and of the thousands upon thousands of other disputes occurring at any given time, and assuming that it could 'feel' in any meaningful sense, then it would feel glad that it's not its job to handle these things.

The Maglev Railway Compact, on the other hand, has been informed of this dispute. It is mildly annoyed in the way that an adult is mildly annoyed when young children fight.