Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
So what is the point of it?  The article offers no explanation of that seemingly obvious question.  The Rio Tinto position seems rather ambiguous about the issue of saving labor.  They are removing the labor needed to run the trains, and yet they say they are not cutting labor because the operation will grow elsewhere and that will require new labor.  That strikes me as fuzzy math.  Even if new operations require new labor, there would be still more labor in total if they did not remove labor from running the trains.  I get the impression they feel that it would be insensitive to say they are automating trains to eliminate jobs.  <o:p></o:p> If a train operation had a lot of variability, I could see where removing the crew might save money by eliminating complications in coordinating operations with crews.  But with a single purpose operation like theirs, running almost like a conveyor belt, it seems to me that they would have such a high level of consistency in train operation and scheduling that it is hard to see the advantage of running without an engineer other than saving the wages.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag