Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Railroad Productivity Gains..an Illusion or real?
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: <i>Originally posted by TomDiehl</i> <br /><br />[quote]QUOTE: <i>Originally posted by futuremodal</i> <br /><br />Well, if railroads had continued to increase max operating speeds after the 1930's (wherein 100 mph passenger operations, even a few fast freights, were getting down the tracks faster than any corresponding highway vehicle) and let the natural technology to it's logical evolution, maybe those four man crews would have been more productive than the two man crews today. Granted, the unions still would have prefered limited crew districts like the 100 mile day, and conversely the railroads would still be pusing for one man crews even with 50 mph or 75 mph average velocities, but think about this in terms of railroad productivity. <br /> <br />[/quote] <br /> <br />For somebody that has a bookeeping background, you continue to amaze me with your lack of basic math skills. The points were the crews were changed were based on a given track district, ie. number of miles. If the train speed is increased, they will cover that district faster (as in less hours on the road) and the crew will be on duty for less hours for the same pay, reducing their productivity. <br /> <br />You even show less ability when you stated: "Granted, the unions still would have prefered limited crew districts like the 100 mile day" showing you realized there was a crew district limit. <br /> <br />Maybe you should defer these type statements to someone that actually has some economics experience. <br />[/quote] <br /> <br />Maybe you should learn to read, TD. The context of the statement refering to crew districts and reduced crews is of the past tense, and refers to the divergent desires of the two parties. It is not meant as a variable inclusion of the primary point, namely a 4 man crew covering 600 miles is more productive than a two man crew covering 200 miles. <br /> <br />Instead of trying to *increase* the bottom line by slashing crews, the railroads would have been better served increasing the average velocity to improve customer relations and increase business. <br /> <br />I doubt a single rail worker layoff ever resulted in any increased business.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy