NSdreamer I would guess that roadrailers are attached to the tires, while double stack cars go on boat, train, and truck, hence the name intermodal.
I would guess that roadrailers are attached to the tires, while double stack cars go on boat, train, and truck, hence the name intermodal.
By that definition than conventional TOFC isn't intermodal? If a system uses more than one mode of transportation than it qualifies...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
zugmann According to my timetables, we are allowed 150 in a train. Anymore requires approval by the chief dispatcher (I think the chief.. I'd have to double check). We constantly ran 150-trailer trains. But they are still very light trains. And the only slack that a roadrailer has is between the first trailer and the engines. There is no slack b/t the trailers themselves. Each trailer has a tongue on the front end that fits in a groove in the next trailer. Then you raise a locking pin, and viola, you have a roadsnailer. No slack whatsoever.
According to my timetables, we are allowed 150 in a train. Anymore requires approval by the chief dispatcher (I think the chief.. I'd have to double check). We constantly ran 150-trailer trains. But they are still very light trains.
And the only slack that a roadrailer has is between the first trailer and the engines. There is no slack b/t the trailers themselves. Each trailer has a tongue on the front end that fits in a groove in the next trailer. Then you raise a locking pin, and viola, you have a roadsnailer. No slack whatsoever.
Light weight is one of the objectives. If you can move the same payload with less tare weight (i.e. no flatcars) it's a good thing. You only get paid for moving the freight. You don't get paid for moving the flatcar.
If you have less weight you save on fuel, track maitenance, locomotive use, etc. Less weight is a good thing.
So is no slack. Slack busts up freight and requires shippers to spend money to block and brace their loads. This increases their costs of using rail compared to trucking. Get ride of the slack and you reduce the costs of shipping by rail. This, also, is a good thing.
zugmann According to my timetables, we are allowed 150 in a train. Anymore requires approval by the chief dispatcher (I think the chief.. I'd have to double check). We constantly ran 150-trailer trains. But they are still very light trains.
150 x [53 ft.+, say 54 ft.] = 8,100 ft. +/- long trains. At 25 tons each - not quite full, and allowing for the bogie truck under each - around 3,750 tons. With a pair of 6-axles diesels leading, roughly 2.1 to 2.3 HP / ton if fully loaded, which they probably usually aren't quite.
zugmann [snip] Then you raise a locking pin, and viola, you have a roadsnailer. No slack whatsoever.
- Paul North.
Modelcar I've seen them operate thru here with up to 140 trailers in consist with {2}, 6 axle engines for power. With that many in tow, the front one sure does have a lot of tension running thru it....as well as others up front...so in that configuration, they have to stand a lot of compression and tension. It does look like they would have minimal slack.
I've seen them operate thru here with up to 140 trailers in consist with {2}, 6 axle engines for power. With that many in tow, the front one sure does have a lot of tension running thru it....as well as others up front...so in that configuration, they have to stand a lot of compression and tension.
It does look like they would have minimal slack.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
blue streak 1There are several items brought up in this thread that seem conflicting. 1. Operational rules require them not to be pushed.i 2. Road Railers are not allowed to be shoved. -- So how is it that when going downhill the Road Railers shove against the loco if it is in dynamic braking? Is there a requirement to use some regular air braking when in dynamic? 3. When I observed AMTRAK operating Road Railers they always had an adapter unit on both the front and rear of the consist to allow connection with the train and to connect to a switcher when adding or removing the Road Railers from the train. 4. If there is an accident can an adapter be attached to the rear to pull the non derailed trailers out of the way? .
There are several items brought up in this thread that seem conflicting.
1. Operational rules require them not to be pushed.i
2. Road Railers are not allowed to be shoved. -- So how is it that when going downhill the Road Railers shove against the loco if it is in dynamic braking? Is there a requirement to use some regular air braking when in dynamic?
3. When I observed AMTRAK operating Road Railers they always had an adapter unit on both the front and rear of the consist to allow connection with the train and to connect to a switcher when adding or removing the Road Railers from the train.
4. If there is an accident can an adapter be attached to the rear to pull the non derailed trailers out of the way?
.
I think you might be misreading we we're saying. Most of the operational restrictions boil down to this...
You can't put TOWs between the locomotives and conventional equipment. There are additional restrictions limited how fast and how you shove TOWs by themselves. TOWs are much stronger in tension then compression.
Nick
Take a Ride on the Reading with the: Reading Company Technical & Historical Society http://www.readingrailroad.org/
Quentin
Any significant operating issues/problems with "Carless Technology" were identified and solved a long time age. The equipment has been in use for decades. It gets over the railroad from here to there just fine.
Its "Failure to Thrive" is not the result of operating limitations. Its "Failure to Thrive" is because attempts to apply it to the market have focused on using it to replace more conventional intermodal operations instead of using it where conventional intermodal has not penitrated the freight market.
It's a marketing issue, not an operating issue.
The issue with shoving TOW equipement, is shoving the TOW against conventional equipement. The current TOW equipment can't withstand the forces need to shove the conventional equipement. I imagine you might have the same issue trying to pull conventional equipement with TOWs. But having the equipement under tension rather then compression could mitigate some of the forces.
"The Invisible Derailment", by Lawrence J. Gross, Trains, November 2007, Vol. 67, No. 11, pp. 52 - 57. It was a Mark IV trailer, which carried the single axle with it, in a BN train on the former CB&Q line from Chicago to St. Louis, a couple miles either side in the vicinity of the bridge across the Mississippi River. [Still can't find it in the 'Index of Magazines', though . . . ]
- PDN.
Mike - Thanks for the further info. That pretty much confirms everything I recalled, or expected.
I still can't find that article in the 'Index to Magazines' [below]. but I know I saw and read it recently - like within the past 3 months or so. I'm also recalling that it was in western Illinois - wasn't a bridge over a river near Joliet involved ? Well, that'll give me something to look for over the rainy weekend . . .
Thanks again.
- PaulL North.
Paul,
I believe the article you were referring to occured on the BN using the original Mark I style trailer that carried its own rail wheelset. As I recall it managed to re-rail itself and the crew didn't realize how close they came.
To address a couple of your questions, yes, you can shove in reverse. NS has a restriction of only 6 powered axles shoving during backup moves. They're light enough that they can be pushed off if the engineer is a little heavy on the throttle.
So far, there is not a coupler on the end of a roadrailer train as it is supported by a plain bogey. If they put a coupler-mate on the end, then you might be able to pull away both ends from a derailment. That's extra weight to carry around, just in case.
Amtrak could pull their roadrailers in either direction at speed, if needed. IIRC they used a modified truck on their bogies to accomplish this. NS also ran some trains with roadrailers facing both directions in the same train. They had a special drawbar that fit between the bogies on the rear of the trailers at the end of each segment. ie the two cuts of roadrailers were back-to-back wth the drawbar in the middle. In this case, they had coupler-mates at both ends of the train. I believe they did this to eliminate a time-consuming wye move while swapping blocks in Fort Wayne.
The concern and goal here - as I understand it - is to be able to ''drag the cripple into the clear'', if at all possible [another expression I got from JGK, but I'm sure it's universal].
But even with conventional equipment, any derailment of more than a few feet off the rail, or serious mechanical failure - such as a burned-off bearing, or broken wheel, etc. - is going to essentially freeze the action until the Mechanical Dept.'s 'block truck' with its crane can get there to set things right. In the meantime, the best that can be done is to pull the rest of the train - maybe both fore and aft of the cripple - off to the nearest siding. But the cripple is still going to be blocking the main, so the RoadRailer is not going to be seriously worse than that.
A couple years ago there was an article in Trains - can't find the reference for it right now - about a RoadRailer that derailed and re-railed itself a couple times before the failure was discovered. Even that crew was able - with some coaching and assistance - to set out the cripple, and resume the run with only a couple hours delay. And whatever we may think theoretically, the years of experience now accumulated indicates that the RoadRailer is no more prone to causing serious main line delays than say, grade crossing accidents. EDIT - add: ''Upon this point, a page of history is worth a volume of logic.'' [Holmes, J.]
What this concern really reflects is an organization and infrastructure that is so stretched thin and stressed-out that the attitude is that it has no capacity or interest in adapting or change - anything that is out-of-the-ordinary routine and process can't be tolerated because of the risk that it will foul up other activities that are perceived to be more important. I concede that the main line of a Class I railroad is not a lab to field-test mechanical experiments or grandiose schemes - that's what the Treansportation Technology Center outside of Pueblo, Colorado is for.
As to the actual capabilities of RoadRailer in this regard, consider the following:
- RoadRailer obviously can move in the usual nose-forward manner - as it would on the highway - with the train stretched in tension, when on the track;
- Presumably, RoadRailer can also tolerate reverse / backing-up moves - with the train in compression - as into a siding. I can't believe that the RoadRailer system is 1-way only;
- If RoadRailer can operate in reverse - albeit slowly - can it not also tolerate being pulled from the rear, stretched and in tension, as well ?
- Can the last truck/ bogie of each RoadRailer train be fitted with a conventional coupler, so that it could be pulled from the rear if needed ?
- Can the RoadRailer be operated in reverse at high speed, if that's what the track layout at a certain location dictates ?
Just wondering, that's all.
BaltACD The one reality of ALL railroad operations is that equipment will fail, generally when and where you can least afford it to fail. When failure occurs, both ends of the train must be 'inter-operatable' with all the other existing equipment on the railroad, so that 'help' can come from either direction. The flimsy construction of RoadRailer equipment only permits handling the equipment from on direction. When you have a failure where the train, for whatever the reason, can't move....you have a track segment that is out of service until the train is moving again. To limit securing 'help' from only a single direction is a restriction most carriers don't want to accept when it comes to handling RoadRailers on their property.
The one reality of ALL railroad operations is that equipment will fail, generally when and where you can least afford it to fail. When failure occurs, both ends of the train must be 'inter-operatable' with all the other existing equipment on the railroad, so that 'help' can come from either direction. The flimsy construction of RoadRailer equipment only permits handling the equipment from on direction. When you have a failure where the train, for whatever the reason, can't move....you have a track segment that is out of service until the train is moving again. To limit securing 'help' from only a single direction is a restriction most carriers don't want to accept when it comes to handling RoadRailers on their property.
This could be a market opening for the competing RAILMATE system as it operates Bi-directionally. I'm not sure whether RAILRUNNER has the same capability?
This is evidently a non-issue. A RoadRailer network has operated for decades on the NS so the NS is not on the list as one of the "Most" carriers who "Don't Want" to accept RoadRailers. BNSF and UP don't seem to be on the list of carriers who "Don't Want To" either since they have RoadRailer trains that are operated as extensions of the Triple Crown network.
CSX? They've tried RoadRailer a couple times and not found commercial success. But they operated the trains. They don't seem to make the "Don't Want To" list either. CN? Well, they had an operation between Montreal and Toronto that also failed financially. But they don't make the "Don't Want To" list either. CP has operated (I don't know if they still do.) RoadRailer trains as Triple Crown extensions.
Seriously, the quoted post is a clasic example of "Silo Think". The potential benifits (i.e. additional revenue) are of no consideration. The only thought is that one day there may be a problem and that must be prevented at all cost.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Kevin C. Smith Paul_D_North_Jr For a while now, I've thought that an optimum high-volume intermodal terminal might involve many - like 10 or a dozen - 'PiggyPackers' or equivalent container and trailer lifters/ loaders/ unloaders. The concept is that they would attack an inbound train something like pirahnas after a cow that falls into a stream - the bones are picked clean before they hit the bottom. So a 100-unit /container/ trailer train could be completely unloaded in like 20 - 30 minutes, and the equivalent loaded in a similar time frame, or a little better than 1 such train per hour. That would greatly cut down on the in-terminal times, which would be good - but it would only work at terminals that are supporting from around 2,400 to 3,000 units a day, of which there are not that many. His name comes up again: John Kneiling often emphasized the same thing-terminals should be built for maximum "throughput". Trains should loaded/unloaded ASAP and sent on their merry (revenue producing) way. If it meant that some lower volume terminals had to pay 8 hours labor but were only working for four, so be it. He felt the economies of the system (mostly reduced capital costs from quicker turn around times) would more than pay for the "unproductive" labor & equipment. I just dug out my copy of Integral Train Systems and was struck by how dated it looked. The pages are actually starting to get a tinge of yellow around the edges. Copyright 1969-that's not old!...is it?
Paul_D_North_Jr For a while now, I've thought that an optimum high-volume intermodal terminal might involve many - like 10 or a dozen - 'PiggyPackers' or equivalent container and trailer lifters/ loaders/ unloaders. The concept is that they would attack an inbound train something like pirahnas after a cow that falls into a stream - the bones are picked clean before they hit the bottom. So a 100-unit /container/ trailer train could be completely unloaded in like 20 - 30 minutes, and the equivalent loaded in a similar time frame, or a little better than 1 such train per hour. That would greatly cut down on the in-terminal times, which would be good - but it would only work at terminals that are supporting from around 2,400 to 3,000 units a day, of which there are not that many.
For a while now, I've thought that an optimum high-volume intermodal terminal might involve many - like 10 or a dozen - 'PiggyPackers' or equivalent container and trailer lifters/ loaders/ unloaders. The concept is that they would attack an inbound train something like pirahnas after a cow that falls into a stream - the bones are picked clean before they hit the bottom. So a 100-unit /container/ trailer train could be completely unloaded in like 20 - 30 minutes, and the equivalent loaded in a similar time frame, or a little better than 1 such train per hour. That would greatly cut down on the in-terminal times, which would be good - but it would only work at terminals that are supporting from around 2,400 to 3,000 units a day, of which there are not that many.
His name comes up again: John Kneiling often emphasized the same thing-terminals should be built for maximum "throughput". Trains should loaded/unloaded ASAP and sent on their merry (revenue producing) way. If it meant that some lower volume terminals had to pay 8 hours labor but were only working for four, so be it. He felt the economies of the system (mostly reduced capital costs from quicker turn around times) would more than pay for the "unproductive" labor & equipment.
I just dug out my copy of Integral Train Systems and was struck by how dated it looked. The pages are actually starting to get a tinge of yellow around the edges. Copyright 1969-that's not old!...is it?
It is amazing how prescient Kneiling was, particularly back in the Mid to late 60's, in his belief that the future of the RR industry lay in the expansion of intermodal and bulk commodity unit train service. Although the type of equipment he advocated (self propelled blocks of flats/hoppers) is not what the industry wound up adopting (although a platform/well car and an integral train Block have the same major design goal, i.e maximizing revenue payload and minimizing tare) he was right on in many of his predictions..
greyhounds [snip] I spent more than a few nights at Calumet Yard in Chicago showing folks how a RoadRailer consist was put together. It was all done with a yard tractor and a forklift to handle the boggies. (RailMate doesn't need the forklift, or forklift operator.) [snip]
That's one thing I'm really curious about - the step-by-step, nuts-and-bolts procedures to put these trains together and take them apart, both in an orderly manner - such as from one of the ends - and maybe in a more ad hoc manner - such as from the middle instead, if there's something there that has a hot priority. What I'm looking for is a sequence of like 10 to 20 still photos with captions, or a short video with commentary, that shows how it is done. This would be for RoadRailers, RailMate, the Exxpressway [Iron Highway], and any others that are in service. I've purchased videos on both the Iron Highway / Expressway and RoadRailer to see how they work, but those videos have been pretty much of a disappointment in this regard - plenty of 'run-bys', but scant footage or time in the terminals, which is what really sets them apart.
I'm sure that some of you would be generous enough to share your own photos and insights with me persoanlly, but I'm trying to get this kind of information out to thebroader audiecne/ readership/ memebership. I'd volunteer myself for this - ''Yeah, it's a tough job, but somebody's gotta do it, right ?'' - except that my vacation time for this year is about all committed now, I don't have many 'inside contacts or connections' to facilitate the necessary access, releases, and permissions, etc., and I'm not that mechanically sophisticated in railroad equipment to fully understand or appreciate or question the pros and cons of what I'd be seeing and reporting on. So perhaps a regular writer for Trains - like a Greg McDonnell, Ed King, etc. - would be a better candidate for that assignment.
I had suggested this type of article on the Expressway to a certain Trains editor about 5 years ago, but nothing came of it then, or since. So now I'll do so again - I 'll send a PM of this post to Andy Cummings momentarily, and we'll see what happens.
CNSF [snips] Interesting comment on the impact of switching costs. The one economic aspect of Roadrailer that we at Santa Fe weren't sold on was the terminal cost. Yes, in the convential 'lift' system there's some switching, plus all that capital investment in cranes and reinforced concrete pads, but at least it's very labor-efficient. It looked to us like it would take a whole lotta tractor drivers and ground workers to first cherry-pick the dozen or so superhot UPS loads out of a 100-unit consist, then break up the rest of the train and release the track for reloading in a couple of hours. The folks at Triple Crown probably know the answer to that question by now. [snips; emphasis added - PDN]
Still, the approach is interesting, even if only say, half as intense. It would be interesting to see one of the manufacturers or vendors of such equipment furnish those kinds of numbers to a major terminal operation 'on trial' or 'on spec' for a 'test run' of that kind of operational arrangement, for - say, 90 days - just like new car dealers will often let you take a demonstrator home for a weekend-long 'test drive' kind of a thing, etc. Once everybody got used to the productivity and turn-around time, I'll bet a pretty good lunch that the lift equipment wouldn't be leaving the terminal to be returned to the vendor anytime soon.
greyhounds Ulrich I just don't see it gaining widespread usage although I'm sure it is useful in some specialized markets. Good old fashioned TOFC doesn't require specialized trailers..requires only a ramp to on and off load..and is far less complex in that nothing more complex than a flatcar with a pin hook is required. Nope. "Good old fashon TOFC" requies flatcars and flatcars require switching. If you think drayage is expensive, you ought to take a look at switching. I've got it at $4.79/minute. That's $287/hour for an engine and crew. Digging out a bad order and lining 'em up for tonight's loads will kill you profitwise. Don't need no switching with RailMate/RoadRailer. And sorting 'em out with a yard tractor instead of a locomotive will never ever block the main line.
Ulrich I just don't see it gaining widespread usage although I'm sure it is useful in some specialized markets. Good old fashioned TOFC doesn't require specialized trailers..requires only a ramp to on and off load..and is far less complex in that nothing more complex than a flatcar with a pin hook is required.
Nope. "Good old fashon TOFC" requies flatcars and flatcars require switching. If you think drayage is expensive, you ought to take a look at switching. I've got it at $4.79/minute. That's $287/hour for an engine and crew.
Digging out a bad order and lining 'em up for tonight's loads will kill you profitwise. Don't need no switching with RailMate/RoadRailer. And sorting 'em out with a yard tractor instead of a locomotive will never ever block the main line.
[emphasis added- PDN.]
Those figures seem high - they work out to $2,300 for a 8-hour shift. But on further thought - no, they're probably about right, and without a huge mark-up for the railroad, either, as below. [Note that 'who knows what' is being used for a switching locomotive these days - an SW1500 or a 'Gen-Set' would be ideal, but they're scarce, as are the GP38's and GP40's - so it might well just as well be a downgraded SD40-something or a Dash-9, etc., as the figures below attempt to take into account.]
Locomotive rental - $1,000 per day = 8-hour shift
Locomotive fuel - 20* gals. per hour x 8 hrs. x $3 per gallon = $480
[Fuel consumption varies from around 5 gals. / hr. at idle to about 35 gals. / hr. in Run 4, per Al Krug's ''LOCOMOTIVE FUEL USE'' webpage at - http://www.alkrug.vcn.com/rrfacts/fueluse.htm - so use 20 gals. per hour as an average.]
Crew Start, 2-person - $800 per day = 8-hour shift
Total - $2,280 per day = 8-hour shift, compared with greyhounds' $2,300 figure above - not much difference at all.
Compare that with a yard / hostling tractor and driver, at approx. $80 to $100 per hour = $1.33 per minute to $1.67 per minute = $640 to $800 per day = 8-hour shift - and perhaps quite a bit less than that, 'depending' on local market conditions and other circumstances, etc.
And then consider the following:
Which operation uses the bigger machine or equipment, which costs more to buy, own, and maintain, etc. ?
Which equipment uses more fuel ?
How many people does each operation use / which is more labor-intensive ?
Which operation likely has the higher labor rates ?
Which operation can be performed only on 1 or 2 ends of the train at a time, which restricts all other access to the train during that time, as well as tying up at least 1 segment of track ?
Which operation could be performed at multiple points along the train simultaneously, without interfering with each other ?
blue streak 1greyhoundsPut the carless trailers on the back of existing trains. It's true that you aren't allowed (I won't use the word "can't" because I believe you can shove on a RailMate/RoadRailer consist, you're just not allowed to do so by regulation.) to shove on the rear of a carless consist. So What? How often is there a need to do that? (I know, trains out of LA have rear end helpers over Cajon. I'm not talking about operating carless out of LA. It is perfectly well served by present hardware. The tremendous volume of freight available out of SW Kansas is not well served by present hardware. That's the type of market I'm talking about.) If thinking is only slightly outside the box maybe operate this way using LAX as an example. 1. Get a non priority IM train about 7000 ft. 2. Set up a Road Railer or Road mate train somewhere else (up to 300ft) but with a unit (s) that will overpower that train for its weight but that can receive DPU. 3. Couple the two together before the hill (s) in question. 4.Now you have a mid-train helper that will not shove the items in #2. 5. Run the train as a normal DPU operation (may require monitoring crew until fully proved). 6. Once out of all extra power required trackage remove some or all of the mid-train helpers and continue on. 7. At some location when the IM is going one way and the back another.Spit train, add EOT to front part and front proceedes and either couple a new engine or use unit that was mid-train, add crew and go to another location. f
greyhoundsPut the carless trailers on the back of existing trains. It's true that you aren't allowed (I won't use the word "can't" because I believe you can shove on a RailMate/RoadRailer consist, you're just not allowed to do so by regulation.) to shove on the rear of a carless consist. So What? How often is there a need to do that? (I know, trains out of LA have rear end helpers over Cajon. I'm not talking about operating carless out of LA. It is perfectly well served by present hardware. The tremendous volume of freight available out of SW Kansas is not well served by present hardware. That's the type of market I'm talking about.)
If thinking is only slightly outside the box maybe operate this way using LAX as an example.
1. Get a non priority IM train about 7000 ft.
2. Set up a Road Railer or Road mate train somewhere else (up to 300ft) but with a unit (s) that will overpower that train for its weight but that can receive DPU.
3. Couple the two together before the hill (s) in question.
4.Now you have a mid-train helper that will not shove the items in #2.
5. Run the train as a normal DPU operation (may require monitoring crew until fully proved).
6. Once out of all extra power required trackage remove some or all of the mid-train helpers and continue on.
7. At some location when the IM is going one way and the back another.Spit train, add EOT to front part and front proceedes and either couple a new engine or use unit that was mid-train, add crew and go to another location.
f
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Yes, perhaps that is a 'fantasy land' proposal [not in 'Disney World' yet, though, is it ?]. On the other hand, how else are we going to provide room for innovations to to be tried out in the real world, given a fair chance but under realistic circumstances and challenges, without making it either a 'free pass' or a sitting duck for those who abhor change ?
Sure, resistance to change is a pretty much universal human trait, esp. for those who are being worked at capacity or are overburdened. That's why the 'ground rules' should include sufficient funding - the new 'whatever' should not expect or have the benefit of a 'free ride' and red-carpet treatment from those that it would replace and/ or burden - even in the short-term; instead, it should be willing and able to pay its own way - and have a reasonable but generous budget to do that during the test period in order to develop better data for the long-term. After that, the operation can be tightened up as needed on the basis of that real-world data. Remember an EMD engineer's principle: ''One test is worth a thousand opinions.''
Example: Some yardmaster objects that switching the new modal equipment is going to cause his regularly scheduled yard job's crew to either run into overtime or 'outlaw' on hours. Fine - that's a valid concern, and that's what we want to hear about up front, so that it can be identified, addressed, and resolved, to the extent feasible in the circumstances. The experiment's manager should then provide the YM with a cost charge account number for when and if that happens - and then also tell him, and follow through with - 'stop-watching' the actual operation to see how often and how long that happens. Before too long a pattern will usually develop, and the smart guys will figure out if it's OK,or needs some kind of change, etc. to make it work better for everyone. And everyone will know if that was a bogus concern, one that happens maybe 10 % of the time, or happens almost all the time, as the case may be.
Of course, the trusted project manager should have enough sense to not 'pull rank' over the Operating Dept. and delay a UPS piggyback or other 'hot' train to give priority to the 90-day experiment. On the other hand, he should be able to get the experimental train ahead of an empty container car 'bare table' move pretty easily, drag freights without too much trouble, and a manifest freight with a showing of need or good cause. That's to get around the 'Just say No !' / veto power bunch. And the point of having a trusted project manager is to be able to know when the 'yes-men' are out and about and working their mischief, and so to instead be a professional skeptic as well and point out the weak spots and flaws that will need to be addressed before the proposal can be considered for prime time implementation.
Paul_D_North_JrWhere is the Bill Brosnan-type visionary leader who will look at something like this, choose a trusted person and give him/ her some staff and an adequate budget for tests, modifications, and consultants, and say something like this: ''I want this to be up and running as a trial or 'beta test' in 90 days, or know the reasons why not. You'll need to explain to me each obstacle that you were not able to overcome, and why - and you'll also need to give this an honest effort and work at this as if your job depends on this, because it might. Safety is your responsibility, but after that - if anybody gets in your way, says 'No', or gives less than full cooperation - I want to know about it ASAP, and so here's my cell phone number.'' Wouldn't that be a refreshing change of approach, attitude, and culture ? Sure, not everything will be a technical or commercial success, but at least it would get a fair shake at working out with someone who is motivated and empowered to cut through the bureaucracy, so that it can be truly evaluated on its merits, pro or con. - Paul North.
Where is the Bill Brosnan-type visionary leader who will look at something like this, choose a trusted person and give him/ her some staff and an adequate budget for tests, modifications, and consultants, and say something like this:
''I want this to be up and running as a trial or 'beta test' in 90 days, or know the reasons why not. You'll need to explain to me each obstacle that you were not able to overcome, and why - and you'll also need to give this an honest effort and work at this as if your job depends on this, because it might. Safety is your responsibility, but after that - if anybody gets in your way, says 'No', or gives less than full cooperation - I want to know about it ASAP, and so here's my cell phone number.''
Wouldn't that be a refreshing change of approach, attitude, and culture ? Sure, not everything will be a technical or commercial success, but at least it would get a fair shake at working out with someone who is motivated and empowered to cut through the bureaucracy, so that it can be truly evaluated on its merits, pro or con.
That is a world that many of us wish we could live in. I don't think that resistance to change is unique to the rail industry. Those who have to manage the production of goods or services are going to resist having more on their platter. At best, they will clearly present the valid obstacles to success and then get to work. At worst, if they have the veto power, they will just say no. On the other extreme, many a "yes man" has smoothed the path to disaster.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.