Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear FM is still stuck on the whole cutting crews doesn't add to the top line... HELLO, it's not about the TOP line its the BOTTOM LINE that counts. Of course cutting costs goes to the bottom line. For a given top line revenue, subtracting costs is how one reaches the bottom line. Cutting off personnel that are not needed in the efficient operation of the railroad is the smart way of doing business. Locomotive Firemen were nice, the extra brakeman and flagman were nice too, but with the elimination of the caboose and advent of FRED to handle the rear along with auotmatic detectors and roller bearings the additional people simply were no longer necessary. Looking back farther, many more brakemen were eliminated by the introduction of the Westinghouse Air Brake. Employees are the number one cost on the railroad. Railroad employees are more expensive due to generally high wages in the industry plus generous benefits including Railroad Retirement and excellent health coverage largely company funded made necessary by, among other reasons the application of the Federal Employers Liability Act and its betheren. Cutting employees creates a significant cost saving. Of course, cutting employees is not recommended when such employees are necessary to the efficient operation of the railroad and cutting remployees should be accomplished by attrition where possible. Adding to the top line happens with continued marketing and efficient operations working hand in hand. The cost savings achieved by whatever means should be applied, at least in some part to increasing the efficiency of operations and system rehabilitation and expansion costs. By plowing some of the earnings back and making smart capital investments the value of the company to sharehaolders and management and the quality of service to customers increases. LC [/quote] Well, maybe if you understood the difference between cutting costs and cutting assets, you might understand what I am saying. Just lopping off labor and trackage without thinking through how and if such cuts will affect the ability to garner business is shear idiocy. Crew reductions did not do a thing for adding more business. It seems railroad management saw labor and operations as a constant rather than a dynamic. If it takes twice as long to walk a consist prior to departure because the railroad eliminated the tail end crewman, then that means the customer's car will also take longer to get to where it's going. If the lack of a tail end crew means a rearward derailment won't be noticed for the next 20 miles until something really bad happens e.g. the car goes jackknife off the track, then the customers will experience yet another delay as the line ends up blocked for the next 48 hours. I believe rail management made such cuts irrespective of any actual hands-on data to support such moves. It was more of a back-patting exercise for management to impress stockholders. Did anyone at those stockholder meetings ever ask why management wouldn't work harder to get those trucks onto TOFC rather than complaining ad nauseum about how the truckers were taking the railroad's traffic? Productivity gains occur through asset enrichment, not retrenchment. [/quote] I understand very well what assets are. I also understand that having too many idle assets results in a loss of those assets or losses through use of unececssary assets. The day of the rear end crew and cabooose is gone. The caboose was in its day the largest source of T&E employee injury claims. It can't be justified in the face of modern technological substitutes. You'd know that if you had worked on the railroad and experienced it yourself, but you haven't so it is beyond your comprehension.[/quote] I am not suggesting a reintroduction of the caboose. And no, one doesn't have to have worked on the railroad to understand this, although it seems actually working for a railroad does something to the brain to make folks like you misinterpret what one is saying. This is what I am saying - do not misinterpret this: Management made cuts in assets without regard to how those asset losses would affect the ability to grow the business. [quote]QUOTE: Elimination of unecessary personnel is good management, not retrenchment. I don't advocate eliminating necessary jobs and I am not a proponent of one man crews or RCL, but all realistic means of reducing costs in the railroad industry must be explored.[/quote] Is it good management to have to start hiring a lot of green crews to meet demand, when you had a pool of experienced crewmen available that you stupidly laid off for "productivity's" sake? Aren't experienced brakemen the logical choice for retraining into engineers and conductors? [quote]QUOTE: Obviously, you have forgotten your own calls for reregulation. Reregulation will cap the upside for railroads at an unacceptable level making the need for efficiency greater not less. So perhaps reregulation isn't such a good idea after all FM?? LC [/quote] I have never once called for reregulation aka pre-Staggers. I have stated that I believe it is inevitable given the current uproar among US rail shippers. What I have called for instead of pre-Staggers regulation is first total deregulation of the rail industry including some separation/transparency of infrastructure from transporter operations, then to establish a new regulatory structure of the infrastructure in the mode of utility regulation with the aim of allowing certain federal tax incentives to naturalize demand for rail services along with highway and waterway services, aka an Americanized version of open access, which would allow the free flow of modal choices among railroads, highways, waterways, etc. Yeah, I can see how someone with a one track mind could consistently misinterpret that view. Way to comlicated for some, I guess.
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