I seem to recall an article (in Trains?) years back where they mentioned long trains, minimal horsepower per ton, and moving trains when they were scheduled to go, filling them out with blocks of other traffic "heading thataway" that were ready at departure time. I know in looking at CP or CN photos on Railpictures.Net, often you will see unit trains of various types with blocks of other traffic cut in to fill the train out to maximum length. Often those blocks are cut in right behind the power. Not necessrily an answer to your question but just a fuzzy recollection and an observation.
Murphy Siding BaltACD Murphy Siding schlimm Murphy Siding CP (not CN) can only gain the efficiencies of bypassing Chicago (and others which he did not specify) by acquiring NS. Oops! I meant CP. You know, those Canadian railroads all look alike to me. Why is taking over NS the only way? Wouldn't the trains run on the same tracks they do now, but just under different ownership?
BaltACD Murphy Siding schlimm Murphy Siding CP (not CN) can only gain the efficiencies of bypassing Chicago (and others which he did not specify) by acquiring NS. Oops! I meant CP. You know, those Canadian railroads all look alike to me. Why is taking over NS the only way? Wouldn't the trains run on the same tracks they do now, but just under different ownership?
Murphy Siding schlimm Murphy Siding CP (not CN) can only gain the efficiencies of bypassing Chicago (and others which he did not specify) by acquiring NS. Oops! I meant CP. You know, those Canadian railroads all look alike to me. Why is taking over NS the only way? Wouldn't the trains run on the same tracks they do now, but just under different ownership?
schlimm Murphy Siding CP (not CN) can only gain the efficiencies of bypassing Chicago (and others which he did not specify) by acquiring NS.
Murphy Siding
CP (not CN) can only gain the efficiencies of bypassing Chicago (and others which he did not specify) by acquiring NS.
Oops! I meant CP. You know, those Canadian railroads all look alike to me. Why is taking over NS the only way? Wouldn't the trains run on the same tracks they do now, but just under different ownership?
I won't quote Paul's thread above, lest it weirds out and becomes unreadable. So, the head guy at CP thinks he can pick up a lot of efficiencies simply by forcing NS to run their railroad his way.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding So, the head guy at CP thinks he can pick up a lot of efficiencies simply by forcing NS to run their railroad his way.
So, the head guy at CP thinks he can pick up a lot of efficiencies simply by forcing NS to run their railroad his way.
Murphy Siding . So, the head guy at CP thinks he can pick up a lot of efficiencies simply by forcing NS to run their railroad his way.
. So, the head guy at CP thinks he can pick up a lot of efficiencies simply by forcing NS to run their railroad his way.
Depending how he runs his railroad - he may be correct.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
zugmann Murphy Siding . So, the head guy at CP thinks he can pick up a lot of efficiencies simply by forcing NS to run their railroad his way. Depending how he runs his railroad - he may be correct.
And the immediate results of a number of mergers in the past tend to indicate that the 'new plan' by the new leaders demonstrated that they didn't know how to operate the acquired property like they thought they did. Think the meltdowns and indigestion that UP had with CNW & UP. Think of the proplems CSX & NS had digesting the parts of CR they purchased.
It is easy to criticize a carriers operating plan from the outside - once faced with the operating realities of the physical plant - in many cases these 'outside plans' aren't worth the thoughts that they overlooked in their creation.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDThink the meltdowns and indigestion that UP had with CNW & UP. Think of the proplems CSX & NS had digesting the parts of CR they purchased.
You'd think one could learn from them. Granted, there always will be problems at the beginning, but now with oeprations so centralized (even now moreso than in 1999), I wonder if a meltdown couldn't be at least minimalized compared to past mergers.
Dakguy201 Murphy Siding So, the head guy at CP thinks he can pick up a lot of efficiencies simply by forcing NS to run their railroad his way. Right! You have one of the essential elements of the proposed deal. I think the other one is that he gains control of the Belt Railway and changes their priorities. If I were the STB, I would require the latter not occur through the sale of enough of the Belt to other majors so that he end up no better than he is now.
Why, Dak? So one of the genuine positives, relief of congestion in Chicago, cannot be realized?
dakotafred Why, Dak? So one of the genuine positives, relief of congestion in Chicago, cannot be realized?
What I am saying is that if the combination of CP and NS occured, the Belt would be run to the benefit of those roads at the expense of everyone else. That doesn't improve the Chicago situation; it just reallocates the problem among the participants.
Plus there is the matter of Mr. Harrison's experience. His record, while something to be admired, is built mostly on railroads that went from point A to point B with few diversions. That strikes me as very different than being able to manage the complexity of Chicago or the NS route structure.
Why would control of the BRC be the only improvement in efficiencies? It does not really bypass Chicago. It really seems that as usual EHH is generating strong negative emotional reactions. They may not be based on potential rail efficiencies but on preservation of the status quo.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
zugmann BaltACD Think the meltdowns and indigestion that UP had with CNW & UP*. Think of the proplems CSX & NS had digesting the parts of CR they purchased.
BaltACD Think the meltdowns and indigestion that UP had with CNW & UP*. Think of the proplems CSX & NS had digesting the parts of CR they purchased.
schlimm Why would control of the BRC be the only improvement in efficiencies? It does not really bypass Chicago. It really seems that as usual EHH is generating strong negative emotional reactions. They may not be based on potential rail efficiencies but on preservation of the status quo.
Because to date, all of the purported efficiencies that EHH claims will be created have been non-specific, thus mere "puffery" = smoke and mirrors. Where's any credible study that identifies and quantifies them ? Without that, what's his basis for making those claims, other than mere wishful thinking ? How does he expect to persuade anyone without that hard information ? If this move was planned and thought through at all, he really should have that kind of information at hand and be able to quote it, instead of spouting vague generalities. Is he accustomed to going off half-cocked like this, making claims and assertions without being to back them up ? Not the kind of guy I'd want running my company.
Interesting, too, is that EHH's "Come to Jesus" moment didn't occur when he was retired from CN and could have been viewed as a kind of 'elder statesman' in the industry. Instead, it comes only now when he thinks his current company will directly benefit from it - and when his puppetmaster William Ackman needs the money, too (see several articles in the Wall Street Journal in the past few weeks).
- Paul North.
I can't imagine a company with very centralized control taking over another company with decentralized contraol and not imposing very centralized control on the whole shebang.
Murphy Siding I can't imagine a company with very centralized control taking over another company with decentralized contraol and not imposing very centralized control on the whole shebang.
Check out CSX, which, despite having centralized ops in Jacksonville, retained most, if not all, of the Conrail DSs. The lines in NYS are dispatched out of Selkirk, NY (near Albany).
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68Check out CSX, which, despite having centralized ops in Jacksonville, retained most, if not all, of the Conrail DSs. The lines in NYS are dispatched out of Selkirk, NY (near Albany).
Didn't they centralize and then decentralize? Balt?
NS' DSes are decentralized, but with autorouter, it's only a matter of time...
I thought it was BRC he was after as well but as it turns out he is after Indiana Harbor Belt (IHB).
zugmann tree68 Didn't they centralize and then decentralize? Balt? NS' DSes are decentralized, but with autorouter, it's only a matter of time...
tree68
CSX centralized in 1988 with most system dispatching offices being moved to Jacksonville, with a couple of stragglers arriving as late as 1992, and the RF&P arriving in 1994 after CSX obtained ownership. Chicago was less than a week from moving day before it was decided to leave it in Chicago.
Dispatching was decentralized in 2008, and ran well with the decreased traffic volumes of the Recession. Once traffic picked up, threshold conflicts between divisions picked up - talking to your counterpart face to face is not the same as trying to get a faceless being answer the phone. There are rumors circulating of centralization again.
Personal observation, Dispatching is the most forgotten and least understood of the railroad crafts.
Zug - Autoroute is still a 'feature' of the CSX CAD system, it doesn't get used by the dispatchers for some of the quixotic and just plain wrong decisions it makes. Example - on a specific territory, Commuter trains are restricted to operating on a particular track because of the design of the passenger stations - autoroute doesn't know or believe this. If a lot of effort was put into developing autoroute it might become an effective tool, to date that development effort has not been undertaken.
zugmann tree68 Check out CSX, which, despite having centralized ops in Jacksonville, retained most, if not all, of the Conrail DSs. The lines in NYS are dispatched out of Selkirk, NY (near Albany). Didn't they centralize and then decentralize? Balt? NS' DSes are decentralized, but with autorouter, it's only a matter of time...
tree68 Check out CSX, which, despite having centralized ops in Jacksonville, retained most, if not all, of the Conrail DSs. The lines in NYS are dispatched out of Selkirk, NY (near Albany).
I don't think so. NS doesn't need autorouter/movement planner to centralize. Just having UTCS is enough. Any desk can be dispatched from any other desk on the system right now. But, NS's whole operations managment is decentralized to a greater degree than on other roads.
Most places, whether to run an extra or annul a train is made by a central office. On NS, these decisions are made at the division level - sometime to the detriment of the network as a whole.
That would have to change before you'd see consolidated distpatch offices.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Paul_D_North_Jr schlimm Why would control of the BRC be the only improvement in efficiencies? It does not really bypass Chicago. It really seems that as usual EHH is generating strong negative emotional reactions. They may not be based on potential rail efficiencies but on preservation of the status quo. Nah, I don't think I'm negatively emotional - but I will admit to being skeptical, based on past experience with these kinds of things. Because to date, all of the purported efficiencies that EHH claims will be created have been non-specific, thus mere "puffery" = smoke and mirrors. Where's any credible study that identifies and quantifies them ? Without that, what's his basis for making those claims, other than mere wishful thinking ? How does he expect to persuade anyone without that hard information ? If this move was planned and thought through at all, he really should have that kind of information at hand and be able to quote it, instead of spouting vague generalities. Is he accustomed to going off half-cocked like this, making claims and assertions without being to back them up ? Not the kind of guy I'd want running my company. Interesting, too, is that EHH's "Come to Jesus" moment didn't occur when he was retired from CN and could have been viewed as a kind of 'elder statesman' in the industry. Instead, it comes only now when he thinks his current company will directly benefit from it - and when his puppetmaster William Ackman needs the money, too (see several articles in the Wall Street Journal in the past few weeks). - Paul North.
Nah, I don't think I'm negatively emotional - but I will admit to being skeptical, based on past experience with these kinds of things.
One only needs to look at operating ratios at both CN and CP pre-EHH and after he implemented his plans and then examine CP's current operating ratio and NS's to see that it is not smoke and mirrors and puffery, but a proven record of success. Of course the consequence might be elimination of deadwood, but that is what shareholders want these days.
oltmanndI don't think so. NS doesn't need autorouter/movement planner to centralize. Just having UTCS is enough. Any desk can be dispatched from any other desk on the system right now. But, NS's whole operations managment is decentralized to a greater degree than on other roads. Most places, whether to run an extra or annul a train is made by a central office. On NS, these decisions are made at the division level - sometime to the detriment of the network as a whole. That would have to change before you'd see consolidated distpatch offices.
UTCS without autorouter required people to run the system. With autorouter enabled, not as much. I think that will be the key to consolidation (if it ever gets to the point of running the railroad unencumbered). And you know many of those decisions made at the division level used to be made at the local level. It's heading in that direction already. CYO/OSS now handles all customer issues - many of which were at one time local decisions. Writing's on the wall.
I could be wrong, but I would be surprised.
How does EHH squeeze efficiencies you ask?Last Friday I happened to see the Halifax - Chicago intermodal train pass thru town and as is my habit, I counted the containers on the train....354 domestic and international containers were being handled.
My estimate was this was over 13,000 ft in length. No second section, just run the train.
Ed
MP173 How does EHH squeeze efficiencies you ask?Last Friday I happened to see the Halifax - Chicago intermodal train pass thru town and as is my habit, I counted the containers on the train....354 domestic and international containers were being handled. My estimate was this was over 13,000 ft in length. No second section, just run the train. Ed
and don't care that it can't meet opposing traffic effectively and no terminals can originate or terminate the train without extraordinary measures and delays to other traffic.
My carrier is emulating this kind of operation. Trains crossing division borders are limited to 12000 feet (formerly 9000), there is no limit on the size of divisional trains, largest I have seen is 15300 feet - there may have been larger trains. While 130 car coal trains have become the norm, some divisions are 'playing with distributed power' and are running 170 car 24000 ton coal trains. Nobody appears to care these trains are movable derailments when they get to terminals where they have to work.
The problem is Chicago and the CP merger with NS will have a great benefit for both Canada and the USA. The CPR is and has always been well run.
Last week (Thurs., 19 Nov. ?) the Wall Street Journal had an article on page B-1 about how this deal would have to bear of heavy burden of proving that it's in the public interest, submitting "a tower of paper", and other railroads would oppose it, meaning it would take several years at best. Ignoring or minimizing that reality and claiming this deal would be done by 2018 is mis-apprehension of the obstacles at best, and delusional at worst.
What if NS turned the tables and made an offer for CP - providing EHH with a "golden parachute", of course ? (reminds me of the joke about the mouse and the cat . . . ).
Paul_D_North_JrIgnoring or minimizing that reality and claiming this deal would be done by 2018 is mis-apprehension of the obstacles at best, and delusional at worst.
The suggestion that EHH does not understand the realities of rails or is delusional is a pretty strong indication of a kneejerk opposition.
schlimm Paul_D_North_Jr Ignoring or minimizing that reality and claiming this deal would be done by 2018 is mis-apprehension of the obstacles at best, and delusional at worst. The suggestion that EHH does not understand the realities of rails or is delusional is a pretty strong indication of a kneejerk opposition.
Paul_D_North_Jr Ignoring or minimizing that reality and claiming this deal would be done by 2018 is mis-apprehension of the obstacles at best, and delusional at worst.
schlimm One only needs to look at operating ratios at both CN and CP pre-EHH and after he implemented his plans and then examine CP's current operating ratio and NS's to see that it is not smoke and mirrors and puffery, but a proven record of success. Of course the consequence might be elimination of deadwood, but that is what shareholders want these days.
But is CP's lower operating ration sustainable? Is the rise in stock prices due to short term policies that could damage CP in the long term? Long after EHH is gone and Ackman has dumped his shares. I have read (admittadly anecdotal) accounts from people working for CP or who work for customers of CP.
EHH may have gone has far as he can with cutting CP into prosperity. That's why some think he has been proposing mergers, first with CSX now with NS. Only way to keep the stock price up. Well, maybe not the only way, but the easiest way.
Jeff
schlimm Paul_D_North_Jr Ignoring or minimizing that reality and claiming this deal would be done by 2018 is mis-apprehension of the obstacles at best, and delusional at worst.
Gee I guess you don't like EHH! As to his medical competence, I am in a far better place to offer an informed opinion on that. Watching his interview, I would conclude your dislike of the man has led you to make a rather rash and ill-informed comment. But go ahead and vent, as you are free to say almost anything you want.
I think the silence from Ft. Worth and Omaha is a vote on the probability this ever gets done. Should either of them believe this deal stands a snowball's chance, I believe one or both or them would jump into the fray with a clearly superior offer.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.