Railroad Productivity Gains..an Illusion or real?

[TomDiehl]

And the insult barrage begins!

When you all got no standing for discussion, the insults begin to fly, probably with the hope that I will retaliate in kind, so that simpler minds like Bert, Tom, and Murphy can then accuse me of being insulting.

Not gonna work.

And to go into detail of why guys like me find lucrative employment by questioning things that are taken for granted by industry, well that would just be a waste of time.

As if Ed or the others cannot concieve of how a rear end crewmember can call in an anomoly as it is spotted, rather than having to wait until the entire consist either goes on the ground or sets the countryside on fire........really, it doesn't take a college degree to figure that one out, but one would reasonably assume that anyone with an IQ above that of Ed's lawn care boy would know what to do!

I love how myself, Tom and Murph are getting insulted when he says he does not want us to accuse him of being insulted!  And we are really not even a part of this thread!  Anyway, I ask this simple question. Dave, you say you do not want the caboose back in service, but do want a rear end crewmember.  Where is that rear end crewmember going to sit??  Are they going to stand on the latter of the last car for the whole trip?  Now on trains with distrubited power, they could ride in the locomotive, but dp is rare in the east, and only really used on coal trains in the midwest.  So what will happen there?  If it is such a need for people to be looking over the train, should we get rid of automated gates, replacing them with people in crossing shanties, to look for the rare times there is something going on with the rear of the train?

Bert

 

And I was on vactaion this past week.

 

[Anonymous]

It will be interesting to follow-up on this particular incident.  Wonder what the total damage will be?  Will it be more than the cost of having a rear end crew member?

My guess would be yes the cost will be more for repairs than having paid for a rear end crew.  However, what about the thousand or so trains that ran on that day, and every other day, that do not have issues?  Don't you think that the cost of one incident is less that staffing every train?  I would think so.  Also FM you still have not gave me an answer on my question, where are the rear end crews going to be housed?  Are they supposed to ride on top of the coal car?  Again not every train has dp, so where will they ride?

1.  Don't need "crews", just a crewmember to be the eyes and ears back there, at the very least.  Hey, you gotta cut labor somewhere, right LC?

2.  If no DPU, how about an actual engine without remote control?  Most long trains use more than one engine, why not stick one in back to push.  And why put up with the the hassles of remote control operation if you don't need to?  Just put one of the crew members in the pusher to operate it.  Even sticking someone in the mid-train helper is better than nought.  Distributed power doesn't have to be remote control, it can be manned power.  Heck, it beats having a supervisor having to drive a hi-rail behind each train as some area railroads have had to do during the fire season.  Now that is not productive labor!

But you're right - if no rear engine, no rear crew member.

3.  Head end crews usually have their eyes focussed ahead of the consist, they are not looking back too often as a rule.  Rear end crews will always be looking forward at the consist, thus they are in better position to spot problems within the consist than the head end crew.

4.  At night you might not see a car gone askew, but you might be able to see the sparks from a broken wheel and such.  A good pair of binoculars can get you detail a good 3/4 of a mile during the day, and at least some detail of lighted events at night.  Night vision goggles might come in handy, too.  Again, better to increase the chances of spotting a problem early rather than waiting until the the train goes in the ditch or goes into emergency somewhere out in the middle of Murphyland.

 

 

[greyhounds]

It will be interesting to follow-up on this particular incident.  Wonder what the total damage will be?  Will it be more than the cost of having a rear end crew member?

My guess would be yes the cost will be more for repairs than having paid for a rear end crew.  However, what about the thousand or so trains that ran on that day, and every other day, that do not have issues?  Don't you think that the cost of one incident is less that staffing every train?  I would think so.  Also FM you still have not gave me an answer on my question, where are the rear end crews going to be housed?  Are they supposed to ride on top of the coal car?  Again not every train has dp, so where will they ride?

Bert

First, I need to congradulate Jay for being right. 

Second, Bert, you're asking Dave to think way too much. 

I remember a C&IM wreck at Forest City, IL in the early 60's.  IIRC the brakes on a coal gon locked up and the wheels slid for miles damaging the track.  Then the train wrecked just south of town.  Lucky it went off where it did because there are some houses very close to the track on the outside of a curve through "Fore City". (Which has about 250 people living within its "city" limits.)

They had a caboose with two men in it.  Didn't make a bit of difference.  It was at night and you can't see the train ahead of you at night.  I've been in a few cabooses on trains at night.  Dave obviously hasn't.  But that doesn't stop "Ole FM" from thinking he knows more than he ever will.

"Ole FM" ain't never gonna' understand cost trade offs 'n such.  It's too much for the boy.  So just read his posts and smile. 

 

 

 

[n012944]

It will be interesting to follow-up on this particular incident.  Wonder what the total damage will be?  Will it be more than the cost of having a rear end crew member?

My guess would be yes the cost will be more for repairs than having paid for a rear end crew.  However, what about the thousand or so trains that ran on that day, and every other day, that do not have issues?  Don't you think that the cost of one incident is less that staffing every train?  I would think so.  Also FM you still have not gave me an answer on my question, where are the rear end crews going to be housed?  Are they supposed to ride on top of the coal car?  Again not every train has dp, so where will they ride?

 

 

Bert

[Anonymous]

As a beancounter let me point out a few facts that most people are ignoring.
1) most road crews, which represents the largest % of crew costs on most class 1 railroads are paid by the mile. This means the the basic wage cost is reduced everytime an employee is cut.
Because of this a reduction in crew districts has no impact on costs whereas a reduction in crew size does.
2) In addition some crew costs are semi-fixed such as medical benefits, which in the USA compared to Canada are substantial. This means that even if a crew only travels 1 mile in a month, the benefit cost is the same as if he works 10,000 miles in a month.
This means a reduction in crew size reduces the number of semi-fixed costs and a reduction of crew districts if it results in fewer overall employee will have a favourable result (from the employer's perspective).

Do I agree with the railways crewing levels? Yes and No.
Yes, because railways are a long haul business and any reduction in crews over a long distance results in major cost reductions. There is also less division of labour which is a good thing although most union organizers would disagree.
No, because trains 140+ cars are too long when there is a problem of any kind that needs to be responded to in person.
In my honest opinion: Too long trains = too long time = too many derailments ( look at CN's record especially with respect to the BCR)

The other thing that railways look at is risk management. They know there will be derailments. They probably even have a good idea as to location as certain sections of track are at the end of their replacement cycle ( which raises another whole argument). As railroads get constrained by insufficient capacity the costs to railroads in terms of lost revenue and performance penalties increases making accidents in total dollar terms more expensive. In % of revenue terms they are less important financially. The question is if you took the money spent on accidents and spent the same money on maintenance how much would the number of accidents decrease. At some point railways also will lose business if they cannot provide reliable transportation as they did in the past.

[Anonymous]

The beancounters who think they are saving money by reducing crew sizes on through freight trains, particularly those with a good deal of work to do enroute must be on one doozy of a cocaine high, much like the Wall Street types who do not know a damn thing about railroading.  I have seen locals that almost need a third man on the crew in order to get switching done and the train put back together. When you have a freight train that does a lot of switching at each station enroute to its final destination and/or crew change point, a two man crew is not really enough to efficiently get the job done, especially with the rules requiring the protection of grade crossings, and the like that need to be delt with as well. In addition,  at least a three man crew is minimum needed to get the job done safely. The railroads have been cutting too many corners on safety and with such matters as crew fatigue, frequency of accidents, equipment wrecked or heavily damage, not to mention track destroyed, the proverbial chickens are finally coming home to roost. What's it going to take for the railroads to wise up, a hazmat catastrophe right in the middle of a heavily populated area? I very much fear so. The same goes for the use of remote controlled switchers to move hazmat loads around the yard, not to mention the terrorist potential if one set of eyes is removed from the train. I think that most manifest freights need at least a three man crew at bare minimum. The additional cost in labor can be made up by the improvement in service to shippers and the increased business that will result.

[edblysard]

And j wins the bet!

Not eating crow, Dave...re read the article, and tell me if it was written by someone familar with railroads, or a cub reporter filling up space.

Wheel flanges dont "burn off".

Bet the cause is dragging equipment.

And yes, having a crew at the rear end means they get to be part of the wreck.

Ed

[Anonymous]

Quothe Edblysard:

"And while you are at it, please quote your source for the 20 mile drag on a derailment, photos, reference source, factual evidence...you know, stuff like that.
Or was that exaggeration too, in an attempt to make your statement seem more valid?
Your assumption or expectation that we have to accept anything you chose to write simply because you wrote it is wrong, you lack any of the credentials, or are too afraid or embarrassed by any you could produce, to validate any of your statements, be it about railroads or economics."

Oh ye of little faith....

 http://www.zwire.com/site/printerFriendly.cfm?brd=1142&dept_id=567520&newsid=16903064

"UPDATE: Single-car derailment created track damage"

Quote of note:  "If readers noticed an unusual amount of activity on the railroad tracks through town on Saturday, that's because BNSF crews were called to repair nearly 30 miles of rails after a coal train came through the area at 11:45 p.m. with a single car derailed.  The damage extended from mile marker 240, near Rome, to mile marker 214 near Middletown."

Ed, are you getting tired yet from having to eat crow at every meal?

Hmmmm, 30 miles of track damage from a single car derailment!  I guess I was wrong to assume that a 20 mile drag was the average length of such incidents. 

The question then is if a rear crew member would have been able to spot the anomaly before the car was dragged 30 miles. Given that this was a unit train, any oddity in the fluidity of the consist would have been easier to spot than if it had been a mixed freight.

It will be interesting to follow-up on this particular incident.  Wonder what the total damage will be?  Will it be more than the cost of having a rear end crew member?

[n012944]

And the insult barrage begins!

When you all got no standing for discussion, the insults begin to fly, probably with the hope that I will retaliate in kind, so that simpler minds like Bert, Tom, and Murphy can then accuse me of being insulting.

Not gonna work.

And to go into detail of why guys like me find lucrative employment by questioning things that are taken for granted by industry, well that would just be a waste of time.

As if Ed or the others cannot concieve of how a rear end crewmember can call in an anomoly as it is spotted, rather than having to wait until the entire consist either goes on the ground or sets the countryside on fire........really, it doesn't take a college degree to figure that one out, but one would reasonably assume that anyone with an IQ above that of Ed's lawn care boy would know what to do!

 

I love how myself, Tom and Murph are getting insulted when he says he does not want us to accuse him of being insulted!  And we are really not even a part of this thread!  Anyway, I ask this simple question. Dave, you say you do not want the caboose back in service, but do want a rear end crewmember.  Where is that rear end crewmember going to sit??  Are they going to stand on the latter of the last car for the whole trip?  Now on trains with distrubited power, they could ride in the locomotive, but dp is rare in the east, and only really used on coal trains in the midwest.  So what will happen there?  If it is such a need for people to be looking over the train, should we get rid of automated gates, replacing them with people in crossing shanties, to look for the rare times there is something going on with the rear of the train?

 

 

Bert

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

I'm with Ed on this situation. Over the years, I will admit to going off half-cocked in a fashion similar to FM from time to time. Like him, I have found myself forced to eat crow or humble pie a number of times and found it quite unpleasant. Unlike him, I've usually been willing to learn from the experience and have learned to respect the practical knowledge and experience of others. If my ideas get shot down, I appreciate finding out why they got shot down and why the ideas weren't so great.

FM has the drive and narrow-mindedness of a political or religious zealot, he treats all of his thoughts as the undisputed truth. If you don't believe it, just ask him.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

And the insult barrage begins!

When you all got no standing for discussion, the insults begin to fly, probably with the hope that I will retaliate in kind, so that simpler minds like Bert, Tom, and Murphy can then accuse me of being insulting.

Not gonna work.

And to go into detail of why guys like me find lucrative employment by questioning things that are taken for granted by industry, well that would just be a waste of time.

As if Ed or the others cannot concieve of how a rear end crewmember can call in an anomoly as it is spotted, rather than having to wait until the entire consist either goes on the ground or sets the countryside on fire........really, it doesn't take a college degree to figure that one out, but one would reasonably assume that anyone with an IQ above that of Ed's lawn care boy would know what to do!

Sorry, Dave. I don't have time to play today. But I do like dark beer!![(-D][(-D]

Perhaps, the productivitiy gain wasn't so much as a step forward, as it was keeping from falling a step behind?

[edblysard]

Need the day, date and destination...could use a good pub crawl now that you mention it.

Mr. Klepper,
If you ever see how a EOT, or rear end device is handled, or the beating they go through in normal service, you would scrap your camera idea pretty quick.
Sorry, but it just wouldn’t survive.
One of the reasons railroading works is because most of our "tools" are oversized, overbuilt and primitive, somewhat crude in fact.
The lesser number of parts we can use to do a particular thing, the better, because that is less to break.
Take a knuckle coupler...four moving parts.
The knuckle itself, a knuckle pin for it to pivot on, a locking pin, and a kicker hook that pushes it open when the lever is lifted, all built way thicker and bigger that is needed, so they survive the pounding.
Other than the shape of the knuckle itself, pretty much the same basic design for over a century, kept because it works, and works well and survives.

What Dave's inexperience fails to clue him into is that no one on the rear of the train, or a camera for that matter, can really see or notice anything farther that 10 or 15 cars away.
Beyond that, unless you are using binoculars, you flat out can’t see anything in enough detail to make it worth the risk of hurting someone.
Now, add in the lineside detectors, everything from hot box detectors, which will pick up a bad bearing, to impact detectors, which will find bad wheels a lot better and faster than any human could...in fact, if your on the rear of a 125 car train, and car number 70 has really bad flat spots, how are you, 55 car lengths away from it, ever going to know?

Back when a big train was 50 cars or so, then both the head end and read crew could keep a eye on the entire train, but that was also the era of friction bearings, cast iron brake shoes, cast wheels, staff brakes wheels and bolt together trucks...all of which are long gone, replaced by longer lasting and much better designed parts.
Spring switches, slip switches, V switches and CTC have done away with the need for a rear switchman...and in CTC with hand throw siding switches, you can drop off the head brakeman, line the switch, drag out, line the switch back, and reverse to pick him up on the head end.
There is no longer any need for anyone to be back there.
As for the derailment that was dragged 20 miles, or the brush fire that supposedly over came a farmer, when ever Dave comes up with any factual proof of them....even if both stories are true, then bluntly put, Dave had one answer correct...it is cheaper to pay for the damage in the isolated incident than any other solution.

Dave is doing nothing but arguing just to argue, he enjoys it.
Ed

[Hugh Jampton]

Productivity gains are an illusion.
The people who decide whether or not to make cuts in the numbers of crews get their productivity number from the bean counters. The bean counters keep track of productivity by multiplying the weight of all of the cargo multiplied by the the distance it moves (Ton-miles). This figure is then divided by the number of employees so you end up with ton-miles per employee. Now, reduce the crew size to 50% of it's current level and the railroad still can run, but it can't carry as much stuff as far, so the ton-miles also goes down. However, the drop in ton-miles does not drop to 50% of it's current level so the productivity per employee seems to go up.

Let's look at a simple example; (not real figures cause I can't be ast to look some up)
A 100 mile long railroad has 100 employees, and in the course of a year it moves 100Million tons of stuff. So that works out to 100MT*100 miles = 10,000MTM per year. Dividing by 100 employees gives 100MTM per employee.
Now, the bean counters cut crew size in half, reducing the number of employees to 50, but some things take a bit longer, so the annual tonnage drops to 75MT. Now we have 75MT * 100 miles = 7,500MTM per year. Dividing this by the 50 employees gives a productivity of 150MTM per employee. Hey presto, productivity is up, profit may also be up depending on how much wages are saved compared with lost revenue.

[daveklepper]

Can we move politely from personalities to technology please?

Why not have a TV camera on the EofTD whose picture shows up on a screen in the locomotive cab? The engineer runs the train and looks forward, and the conductor watches the screen.

[jeaton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

And the insult barrage begins!

When you all got no standing for discussion, the insults begin to fly, probably with the hope that I will retaliate in kind, so that simpler minds like Bert, Tom, and Murphy can then accuse me of being insulting.

Not gonna work.

And to go into detail of why guys like me find lucrative employment by questioning things that are taken for granted by industry, well that would just be a waste of time.

As if Ed or the others cannot concieve of how a rear end crewmember can call in an anomoly as it is spotted, rather than having to wait until the entire consist either goes on the ground or sets the countryside on fire........really, it doesn't take a college degree to figure that one out, but one would reasonably assume that anyone with an IQ above that of Ed's lawn care boy would know what to do!

Typical consultant. Needs a real railroader to rewrite his "brilliant" plan. Lets go have a Guiness and discuss it... Ed, will you and Jay join me???

FM you aren't invited...

LC

I'm in.
Jay

[gabe]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

And the insult barrage begins!

When you all got no standing for discussion, the insults begin to fly, probably with the hope that I will retaliate in kind, so that simpler minds like Bert, Tom, and Murphy can then accuse me of being insulting.

Not gonna work.

And to go into detail of why guys like me find lucrative employment by questioning things that are taken for granted by industry, well that would just be a waste of time.

As if Ed or the others cannot concieve of how a rear end crewmember can call in an anomoly as it is spotted, rather than having to wait until the entire consist either goes on the ground or sets the countryside on fire........really, it doesn't take a college degree to figure that one out, but one would reasonably assume that anyone with an IQ above that of Ed's lawn care boy would know what to do!

Typical consultant. Needs a real railroader to rewrite his "brilliant" plan. Lets go have a Guiness and discuss it... Ed, will you and Jay join me???

FM you aren't invited...

LC

OK, I realize I have not been invovled as much as I would like to be in a while. But if there is dark beer to be drank (I skof at corporate gueness) and trains to be talked about, I will be there.

Hell, I will buy and FM can come. I just think that if, in the end, the corporate party he plays for is wrong, must pay for drinks.

I have a 2000 mile radius. The bet is on.

Gabe

[Limitedclear]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

And the insult barrage begins!

When you all got no standing for discussion, the insults begin to fly, probably with the hope that I will retaliate in kind, so that simpler minds like Bert, Tom, and Murphy can then accuse me of being insulting.

Not gonna work.

And to go into detail of why guys like me find lucrative employment by questioning things that are taken for granted by industry, well that would just be a waste of time.

As if Ed or the others cannot concieve of how a rear end crewmember can call in an anomoly as it is spotted, rather than having to wait until the entire consist either goes on the ground or sets the countryside on fire........really, it doesn't take a college degree to figure that one out, but one would reasonably assume that anyone with an IQ above that of Ed's lawn care boy would know what to do!

Typical consultant. Needs a real railroader to rewrite his "brilliant" plan. Lets go have a Guiness and discuss it... Ed, will you and Jay join me???

FM you aren't invited...

LC

[jeaton]

If you make a lucrative income from questioning things that are taken for granted by industry, you must be getting your assignments from people who take it for granted that somebody who calls himself a consultant will always have an idea worth the fee.

[Anonymous]

And the insult barrage begins!

When you all got no standing for discussion, the insults begin to fly, probably with the hope that I will retaliate in kind, so that simpler minds like Bert, Tom, and Murphy can then accuse me of being insulting.

Not gonna work.

And to go into detail of why guys like me find lucrative employment by questioning things that are taken for granted by industry, well that would just be a waste of time.

As if Ed or the others cannot concieve of how a rear end crewmember can call in an anomoly as it is spotted, rather than having to wait until the entire consist either goes on the ground or sets the countryside on fire........really, it doesn't take a college degree to figure that one out, but one would reasonably assume that anyone with an IQ above that of Ed's lawn care boy would know what to do!

[Limitedclear]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

Well, I see that futuremodal has "backed up the hearse". If all other arguments fail, that is the one that will certainly swing the deal.

Of course, in his ideological rant objecting to environmental and safety laws, lives lost or lives saved don't enter the picture. Oops, sorry that is a different discussion.

He knows nothing but his twisted ideas of economics...

LC

[jeaton]

Well, I see that futuremodal has "backed up the hearse". If all other arguments fail, that is the one that will certainly swing the deal.

Of course, in his ideological rant objecting to environmental and safety laws, lives lost or lives saved don't enter the picture. Oops, sorry that is a different discussion.

[edblysard]

Whose consensus, Dave?
Because as someone who has been on the end of a train as it did derail, I can promise you that not a thing could have been done from there.
Been on the point of a shove as it picked a broken frog point, and laid right over on its side, pretty as you please.
Not a thing could have been done about that, either.
Quit reading "old time railroading stories from guys who have been out of the business for 50 years".
Quit trading "I wish" stuff with Mike...
Grow up; get a job, and a life outside of the internet.

In my previous post, I was going to draw a comparison between you and the lightly retarded young man who mows lawns in our neighborhood....but that would have been a disservice to the young man.
He, at least, tries to learn and better himself.
Life dealt him a blow that most of us can’t even imagine, but he just smiles when someone makes a comment about him, and goes on doing his best.

His Dad owns a car dealership, the kid doesn’t have to mow lawns, in fact, the guy will never have to work a day in his life, but he does anyway.

Simply because he believes what his dad says to him, you learn more by doing, and that money earned honestly is the best kind.
He is in his early 20s, has the mental capability around that of a 12 or 13 year old, and always will be stuck there.
Even with his disability, he runs a small lawn care business, by himself, and is pretty proud of it, rightly so.
You could learn a lot from him, mostly manners, humility and self control, and a willingness to try.

But I think that is way beyond your scope of thought.
Ed

[Anonymous]

Poor Ed, musta sprung a leak in his hose.

If you care to read the very first post on this topic, you would see that the topic starter himself put forth the proposition that it might take twice as long to walk a train as before when there was a rearend crew to supplement the head end crew. It was put forth as a "what if" statement for the purpose of generating discussion, not as a statement of fact.

Too bad you and that other "you" can't discern between a "what if" statement and a statement of purported fact. If you care to actually read what I said, I put forth two "what if" statements to bring to light the point of the discussion, namely if it is necessarily a positive thing to cut out assets under the guise of productivity gains, when in fact such cuts might actually interfere with the real end game of railroading aka garnering business and staying on the positive end of public relations. Such asset reductions may actually result in higher costs in other areas such as higher insurance premiums, because there were no eyes and ears to catch a problem somewhere in the consist.

It is consensus that a head end crew will not notice anomolies back in the consist such as a derailed wheelset being dragged along between the rails cutting up the ties until finally the car itself goes off track, or a broken wheel causing sparks to fly along the right of way, catching everything on fire in the process. When there were eyes and ears at the back end, these anomolies were noticed in a more timely manner, thus preventive action could be taken much sooner before too much damage was done. Up here in the PNW there are at least a dozen ROW fires set during the dry season EVERY YEAR, catching forests and wheat fields on fire. One such incident resulted in a farmer being overtaken by the flames and perishing in the inferno, and all because BNSF and the others didn't think having personnel at the rear of the train is important. Oh well, BNSF's insurance will pay for the deceased and the area losses that resulted, right?

I'll say it again, I do not wi***o see the caboose make a return. However, for this particulare transportation mode in which the trainsets are a mile or more long, it may have been a misstep to take out the crewman watching the backend. How to address this? Well, with DPU's it is now possible to have at least one crewmember riding the pusher, and that person would be invaluable to reporting such in-consist anamolies in an expedient manner, rather than waiting until the 6'oclock evening news to find out you just set four counties on fire during your run.

[jeaton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by chicagorails

more lives would be saved if the cabose was still on the trains.but of course money was more important for the rails company,hey.there is the rub a dub,bub.[:)]

How is that???

[Anonymous]

I concur. Well said, Ed.

The only things I can see that "Futuremodal" proves with his posts are that an education (he claims to have one) does not equate to intelligence or experience, nor does it guarantee maturity or good manners.

With over 3.5 posts a day, he also shows that quantity does not equate to quality. I wonder what he is going to do when the Reader Forums are nonfunctional July 10 through 12?

[chicagorails]

more lives would be saved if the cabose was still on the trains.but of course money was more important for the rails company,hey.there is the rub a dub,bub.[:)]

[Limitedclear]

Well said as usual Ed...

LC

[edblysard]

So, if you never have worked for a railroad, in the T&E departments, where do you get the concept that it takes "twice as long to walk a consist prior to departure" without a rear end crew?
Quote your source, please, because you present this as a fact, with no qualifying statement.
Show us where and how you came to this conclusion.
Are you guessing?
Did someone tell you this, and who would that person be?
What are their credentials?
Explain to us why someone from the crew would have to walk the consist in a terminal or yard.
And while you are at it, please quote your source for the 20 mile drag on a derailment, photos, reference source, factual evidence...you know, stuff like that.
Or was that exaggeration too, in an attempt to make your statement seem more valid?
Your assumption or expectation that we have to accept anything you chose to write simply because you wrote it is wrong, you lack any of the credentials, or are too afraid or embarrassed by any you could produce, to validate any of your statements, be it about railroads or economics.
You chose instead to copy other peoples work, or edit others work to make it appear they are in agreement with you.
You have even stooped so low as to falsify and impersonate another forum member in your desperate and feeble attempt to validate your concepts.

Point is, you are making statements and presenting them as facts, with no first hand knowledge of the actual working of railroads or trains.
You make conclusions, and are then presenting them as fact, based on nothing but assumptions and light reading.

So far, you have presented nothing but theory, with out any operating experience, and have been demanding we then give your theory credence, and consider it valid.
Funny, but had you had ever done any of the work mentioned, or even read the GCOR rules on it, you would have at the least a very basic concept of what an initial terminal air test involves, and why and how it is done.
Do you know why and how a EOT device works?
Do you know what happens when a train derails, even at slow yard speeds?
Do you understand how and why the air brakes and train line work?
Had you done even that small amount of valid research, you would see how silly and exaggerated the statement quoted is.
I would love to meet the engineer that had a derailment, then drug it 20 miles without noticing it...just so I could shake the hand of the numbest person on the planet.

As was pointed out, pre 85 employees are "protected" in that they still work under some provisions of the old contract, and get perks and pay way beyond anyone hired after 1985, up to and including a yearly paid form of profit sharing, or trip pay incentive...which can equal the entire yearly salary of a new hire by itself.
Keeping these men on the payroll, when their service is no longer needed, is a huge drain.
Why do you think the carriers and the unions both went full bore on the 30/60 retirement deal?
It benefits both parties.
Old heads get to walk away with full pension at 60, with 30 or more year’s service, and the carriers get a big reduction in their payroll cost because the men in position to utilize this are, for the most part, pre 1985, or “protected men”.
Where do you think the manpower shortage you hear about came from?

If you have no idea, or have never read or understood that contract, then how can you make any statement in regards to it, in any but the most generalized terms?
Do you know what "air pay" is, and why or how it is paid?
How about "away from home terminal" pay, or "unprotected man" pay?
These guys get extra money just for working with a post '85 employee.
Do you understand deadhead pay, why and how it is paid?

You have no knowledge of any of these, yet seem to think that you are qualified to comment on them, in as much as you dismiss the impact these perks and employees make on the bottom line, and make such broad and uninformed statement as you do.

So, yes, Dave, "not" having done the work means you are indeed not qualified to make statements of fact about it.

This in turn, puts almost all of your postings, threads, and comments into the “all you have to do” catagory...pure speculation and guess work, nothing more.

You seem to think the more strident your and loud you make your assumptions, the more we should value them.
You also seem to think that the more you insult people, the more we will respect you, or the more we will pay attention to you…which is fairly stupid on your part, for all it really does is highlight how uninformed and ignorant of trains, railroading and people you are.

Sorta like a little high school kid who cusses, thinking it make him appear older, or worldlier, when in fact, it only makes him look more like a kid, your tirades and name calling earn you little or no respect, because it only shows you are unwilling to learn or listen.
You argue with people, who not only work in the field you are commenting on, but in some instances, own or manage railroads, dispatch railroads, run the locomotives, line the switches…one of them runs a railroad for the DOD, yet you seem to think they are all the fool, and you have to only “truth” there is…
This makes you nothing but a fool and a troll, arguing for arguments sake alone.
Which, in turn, makes you either a comic relief, or a waste of time.
Ed

[Limitedclear]

FM your understanding of the railroad industry is so limited as to continually result in your OA mentality.

Obviously, you don't have a counter argument to removing the caboose. Remember that before the Westinghouse Air Brake many brakemen were needed to apply and remove handbrakes by hand. When there was a caboose there needed to be a flagman, rear brakeman and conductor in addition to the Engineer, Fireman and head brakeman on the head end.

Then there were inventions, two way radio eliminated the need for a flagman as trains could now be controlled by a dispatcher with or without fixed lineside signals. Operation by timetable became obsolete. The EOTD eliminated the need for the conductor on the caboose with his emergency brake valve and the lineside HBD/DED and better roller bearings eliminated the need for the brakeman watching ahead from the caboose.

As to the retention of the surplus locomotive firemen, flagmen and brakemen. Some eventually came back to work on the railroad having been lais off for over a decade. I worked with several. Others sought different career paths. At the time they were furloughed the railroad didn't need them and had no idea when it might need them again. There wasn't any sense in keeping them for a need that might never arise. Also, there was another important point. In 1985 new labor agreements were made that split the more expensive pre-1985 crews from the "New Hires" who were able to claim substantially fewer arbitraries and other pay adjustments than the pre-1985 employees. This made pre-1985 employees much more expensive than post-85s performing the same work. Obviously, the railroads were in no hurry to rehire or add more expensive employees and chose instead to train new employees for those jobs knowing that the pre-85 employees were more expensive and most were older and had fewer years to work . Certainly a rational choice, if not one calculated to be popular.

FInally, with respect to your OA continued reregulation foolishness...

It has obviously never occurred to you in your tunnel vision OA world that railroads competed for decades with many parallel lines. In most such places the strongest railroads won. They won through efficient use of resources or by having the best engineered route or both. Your concept of forcing open access to competitors is first a taking of property subject to the 5th and 14 Amendment Due Process Clauses and second an economically foolish idea. Each train that operates over the track of the owning railroad is generating revenue and degrading the track structure. Forcing the owner to allow competitors to use its tracks is a taking of property requiring just compensation. Second, having multiple competitors using one track will be similar to having parallel lines. While the shared infrastructure may be slightly cheaper to maintain, the heavier usage will more than make up for those savings through required repairs. What will happen is the railroads operating over the line will try to retain the traffic by price cutting and the weakest will fail. On weaker routes, all will fail and abandonment will result or the original owning railroad will get the line back without competition...some solution...as they say in the beer commercial...BRILLIANT!!

LC