Ulrich wrote: A pension huh? nuff said...
A pension huh? nuff said...
Ya know, what they give you for years of service to retire with? For folks like you, it's every man for himself.
enr2099 wrote:And loose my entire pension? I don't think so. I'm stuck with CN.
In 11 years, I'll take my 401k, Railroad Retirement, move to the Mississippi river. I earned it.
traisessive1 wrote: ... you know nothing. As stated before, ask any person who works on the trains or in the track gangs for CN anywhere on their system and you will quickly find that CN is as far from safety as A is from Z in the alphabet. They preach it to make themselves look good. But heck its not safe. It's a cover their butt thing. It's all a way to harass employees and boost shares.Since CN is losing money this year ... you should see the things they are doing ... heck NOT doing to save even more money by spending even less of what they already were not spending.And you know how CN copes with large volumes of traffic? By making half of their trains 7000-12000 feet and only having 2 units on it. You are in Notch 8 all the time ... even down hill half the time. The units never get a rest. They are so power short they just run everything to the max 100% of the time. They are getting a whole whack of new units. And you know what they are doing to help themselves with their power shortage ... you guessed it ... scrapping units! And as for wide cabs ... its all in the models. The standard widecabs on the new units today are a heck of a lot nicer than the CN widecabs. As the guy ahead of me posted. You can walk along the tracks on the high speed jointed rail mainlines and see just how badly it is in disrepair. Also yes in the Canadian collective agreement there is no wait time before you can be a conductor. You do your 15 yard trips and your 30 (15 there and back) roads and bam you are a conductor that is EXPECTED to be as good as the old heads with 20+ years.New guys are smashing stuff up everywhere.
... you know nothing. As stated before, ask any person who works on the trains or in the track gangs for CN anywhere on their system and you will quickly find that CN is as far from safety as A is from Z in the alphabet.
They preach it to make themselves look good. But heck its not safe. It's a cover their butt thing. It's all a way to harass employees and boost shares.
Since CN is losing money this year ... you should see the things they are doing ... heck NOT doing to save even more money by spending even less of what they already were not spending.
And you know how CN copes with large volumes of traffic? By making half of their trains 7000-12000 feet and only having 2 units on it. You are in Notch 8 all the time ... even down hill half the time. The units never get a rest. They are so power short they just run everything to the max 100% of the time. They are getting a whole whack of new units. And you know what they are doing to help themselves with their power shortage ... you guessed it ... scrapping units!
And as for wide cabs ... its all in the models. The standard widecabs on the new units today are a heck of a lot nicer than the CN widecabs.
As the guy ahead of me posted. You can walk along the tracks on the high speed jointed rail mainlines and see just how badly it is in disrepair. Also yes in the Canadian collective agreement there is no wait time before you can be a conductor. You do your 15 yard trips and your 30 (15 there and back) roads and bam you are a conductor that is EXPECTED to be as good as the old heads with 20+ years.
New guys are smashing stuff up everywhere.
Very well put.
traisessive1 wrote: As the guy ahead of me posted. You can walk along the tracks on the high speed jointed rail mainlines and see just how badly it is in disrepair. Also yes in the Canadian collective agreement there is no wait time before you can be a conductor. You do your 15 yard trips and your 30 (15 there and back) roads and bam you are a conductor that is EXPECTED to be as good as the old heads with 20+ years.New guys are smashing stuff up everywhere.
Our collective agreement says, I believe, six months training is required. CN is trying to say that the six months starts at the start of rules class, but apparently it is meant to be six months training as a helper/brakeman. Might be different for you guys back east though.
After the strike, I was on an afternoon yard trying to switch out a train and went through 2 sets of power trying to switch this train out. The first set, one unit wouldn't load, the other one was low on water and kept dying, the second set one of the units was low on water and died, the other one just kept slipping(no sand).
Ulrich wrote:CN is far far frar from a bad railroad... They are an EXCELLENT railroad...and like most roads today they are coping with large increases in volume over some difficult terrain. CN is not only the most profitable road...it is a safety innovator. What other road has been running safety cabs on all new units since 1974?
Since it's obvious that you are either A) A drooling foamer or B) A CN official ... you know nothing. As stated before, ask any person who works on the trains or in the track gangs for CN anywhere on their system and you will quickly find that CN is as far from safety as A is from Z in the alphabet.
10000 feet and no dynamics? Today is going to be a good day ...
CN???? SAFE???? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!! Oh...that's too funny. A railway that's having major derailments almost everyday, a railway that killed the entire fish population of the Cheakamus River, oh yeah that's a real safe company. A company who's CEO is such greedy son of a b****, he's not spending any money on infrastructure. Locomotives and tracks are falling apart. I've seen abandoned railways in better shape than most of CN. Remember the bridge collapse on the BC North Line? Caused by Hunter's penny pinching.
A multi-billion dollar railway and they're too cheap to make sure everyone has radios, to properly maintain locomotives and track and to provide employees with proper training. New employees with only 3 months training are being foreman/conductor qualified with absolutely no familiarzation or experience as a helper/brakeman.
Yes indeed..more tonnage..more employees...more route miles...but not as profitable...and as an investor profit is all I care about. I haven't said anything disparaging about the others...they're good roads too.
So why the wide cabs if not for safety?
Ulrich wrote:So why did the railroads switch over to the more expensive wide cabs then..looks? CN has a good safety record and is working hard to improve certain problem areas. Keep in mind, also, that CN is a more complex far reaching operation that the others given that it is the only true transcontinental railroad...from Halifax to Vancouver/Prince Rupert and right down to the Gulf Coast. The other roads are basically super regionals.
Yes, "Super Regionals" which make a heck of a lot more money than CN, have more route miles than CN, more employees than CN, and carry more tonnage than CN. As well, some are improving P/E ratios, while not yet close to CN's, they are at least heading in that direction. When I look in my portfolio, CN is not in it, but UP, BN, and NS are.
Two western "Super Regionals" have the same types of topography, and experience the same types of operational difficulties as CN. In places, they have triple main tracks in place to accomodate capacity. They run fast intermodals, fast guaranteed perishables, that meet customers expectations, and are expanding. One needs not be Trans-Continental to get the job done.
Sorry old sock, I don't buy your sales pitch.
A.K. Cummings wrote:Re: Beauleau's post:But there's a piece I'm still missing here in the logic being kicked around in this discussion: The STB has ruled that DM&E can build the coal project, sans bypass, and run trains through downtown Rochester over the current (1864) alignment. So what's the problem? Why is Rochester/Mayo a barrier of any kind? Don't get me wrong — I'm not saying the railroad should snub them, or kick sand in their faces, or anything like that. But clearly, Mayo is going to continue to demand a bypass, CPR is going to say no, and none of it will matter, because when it gets DM&E, CPR will inherit DM&E's authorization to run coal trains, as part of the PRB project, through downtown Rochester. What's left unsettled? Where's the barrier? I know a lot of intelligent folks on this list are saying there is one, but I have yet to hear a coherent explanation, on any forum, as to why Mayo/Rochester are barriers of any kind.
As far as I can tell, Mayo has no leg to stand on in regards to the original PRB line case. However, with a new player, they can try to negotiate with CPR to reach an understanding. From a business standpoint, it makes perfect sense to do so.
A.K. Cummings wrote:I also wouldn't read too much into the STB considering this a major transaction. I admit that it surprised me, but there certainly are a lot of interested parties here. That it's a major transaction doesn't prejudge whether it will be approved or not. I still don't see any way anyone is going to convince the STB to deny the DM&E/CPR merger. Sure, they may impose conditions, such as trackage rights, just as they did with the UP/SP merger. But so what? As far as saying "no," what would be the basis for that? It's an end-to-end merger, there aren't any communities losing competitive access, so I'd be shocked if the STB didn't ultimately approve this merger, even if it takes longer than DM&E and CPR initially anticipated.Best, Andy CummingsAssociate EditorTrains MagazineWaukesha, Wis.
Andy, the transaction itself is "significant", meaning unlike a minor transaction, it will require a higher filing fee for the application, and more documentation. No where near that of a "major" transaction. I too will be shocked if the transaction is rejected by the STB, in fact, I look at it as a given. Just a few more hoops to jump through for CPR is all.
Step back for a moment and put yourself in the shoes of the STB. They finally finished the PRB line case and EIS. Do you think for one moment they want to open up that can of worms again? Not if they can help it. However they must remain neutral in that as a regulator. It is that neutrallity, along with the filings in the case so far, that made them decide upon the merits presented to them, and not their wishes to keep the case as smooth and simple as possible.
Ohhh boy, where to start. First off, I find no connection between a carrier having a wide body type locomotive, and overall safety. It maybe indeed a small factor, but does not impact overall operations. Yes, they innovated with RCO, the most inefficient way to switch cars in a yard as compared to conventional service. (Of the three fatalities reported by a carrier in 2007 in switching yards, all were RCO. Real safe.) Their take on safety is, if they can hide it, no one will know. Just ask the line people.
WIAR wrote: beaulieu wrote: I think this decision also implies that the CN + EJ&E will also be considered a "significant" transaction which must displease CN. As far as DM&E and IC&E becoming "Class I" carriers as a result of this transaction, probably only if the PRB extension is built. The IANR is probably looking for what it can get out of the deal, perhaps trackage rights to Chicago. Do you really think IANR would be angling for trackage rights to Chicago?? Granted - they're a solid short-line between Manly and Cedar Rapids and they're doing well on the ethanol and grain business, but do you really think they'd be in a position to want trackage rights all the way to Chicago?
beaulieu wrote: I think this decision also implies that the CN + EJ&E will also be considered a "significant" transaction which must displease CN. As far as DM&E and IC&E becoming "Class I" carriers as a result of this transaction, probably only if the PRB extension is built. The IANR is probably looking for what it can get out of the deal, perhaps trackage rights to Chicago.
I think this decision also implies that the CN + EJ&E will also be considered a "significant" transaction which must displease CN. As far as DM&E and IC&E becoming "Class I" carriers as a result of this transaction, probably only if the PRB extension is built.
The IANR is probably looking for what it can get out of the deal, perhaps trackage rights to Chicago.
Do you really think IANR would be angling for trackage rights to Chicago?? Granted - they're a solid short-line between Manly and Cedar Rapids and they're doing well on the ethanol and grain business, but do you really think they'd be in a position to want trackage rights all the way to Chicago?
That is pure speculation and has no footing in fact. Iowa Northern just wants it's interests covered, and who could blame them? With Manly Terminal soon to open, and the gold mine UP gave them in the route to Oelwein, they are doing well. The management of Iowa Northern seems quite focused upon their service to customers, as I have seen first-hand. Their partnership with other lines seems to work for them, and all have prospered for it.
beaulieu wrote: and CP would have no advantage in serving plants in the Southern US. Indeed with Eastern powerplants being forced to install expensive pollution control equipment the eastern market will probably grow only as Applachian mines become too expensive.
First Energy Corp (Ohio), Detroit Edison (Michigan), And The Southern Company (Georgia Power) are already using PRB coal at some plants. All three in fact are supporting members of the PRB Coal Users Group.
Seems like any PRB sourced hauler would look with enthusiasm toward expanding their business with thos entities
Convicted One wrote: Interesting...just for the sake of discussion, forgetting about CP for the moment, do you think that the original DM&E could have paid back the $2.1 billion government loan with only 10 loaded trains per day?
Interesting...just for the sake of discussion, forgetting about CP for the moment, do you think that the original DM&E could have paid back the $2.1 billion government loan with only 10 loaded trains per day?
No, the DM&E would require more trains than the CP since they would have a shorter haul, and I don't think that CP will have to finance as much as the DM&E would.
A.K. Cummings wrote:Re: Beauleau's post:But there's a piece I'm still missing here in the logic being kicked around in this discussion: The STB has ruled that DM&E can build the coal project, sans bypass, and run trains through downtown Rochester over the current (1864) alignment. So what's the problem? Why is Rochester/Mayo a barrier of any kind? Don't get me wrong — I'm not saying the railroad should snub them, or kick sand in their faces, or anything like that. But clearly, Mayo is going to continue to demand a bypass, CPR is going to say no, and none of it will matter, because when it gets DM&E, CPR will inherit DM&E's authorization to run coal trains, as part of the PRB project, through downtown Rochester. What's left unsettled? Where's the barrier? I know a lot of intelligent folks on this list are saying there is one, but I have yet to hear a coherent explanation, on any forum, as to why Mayo/Rochester are barriers of any kind. I also wouldn't read too much into the STB considering this a major transaction. I admit that it surprised me, but there certainly are a lot of interested parties here. That it's a major transaction doesn't prejudge whether it will be approved or not. I still don't see any way anyone is going to convince the STB to deny the DM&E/CPR merger. Sure, they may impose conditions, such as trackage rights, just as they did with the UP/SP merger. But so what? As far as saying "no," what would be the basis for that? It's an end-to-end merger, there aren't any communities losing competitive access, so I'd be shocked if the STB didn't ultimately approve this merger, even if it takes longer than DM&E and CPR initially anticipated.Best, Andy CummingsAssociate EditorTrains MagazineWaukesha, Wis.
I think that Rochester/Mayo will seize on any possible reason that the CP shouldn't be allowed to merge with DM&E, and failing that will try to get conditions inserted into the STB ruling giving them what they what. The STB isn't the same animal it was in the past. I note that the STB chose to consider this transaction as "significant" rather than "major" since it won't force any kind of realignment by the other Class Is.
trainboyH16-44 wrote: nanaimo73 wrote: CP is the *good* railroad with red AC locomotives and the steam engine. CN is the *bad* railroad with black locomotives, a long string of accidents, and the former WC and IC.I can only say I support this statement
nanaimo73 wrote: CP is the *good* railroad with red AC locomotives and the steam engine. CN is the *bad* railroad with black locomotives, a long string of accidents, and the former WC and IC.
CP is the *good* railroad with red AC locomotives and the steam engine. CN is the *bad* railroad with black locomotives, a long string of accidents, and the former WC and IC.
I can only say I support this statement
Didn't the CP just have a derailment across the river from La Crosse due to a sleepy crew?
Paul
http://www.youtube.com/user/pavabo
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulvbox
beaulieu wrote: The 43 coal trains per day of course is pure garbage, BNSF and UP aren't going to rollover and play dead, and CP would have no advantage in serving plants in the Southern US. Indeed with Eastern powerplants being forced to install expensive pollution control equipment the eastern market will probably grow only as Applachian mines become too expensive. If CP cannot justify the PRB extension on something near 10 loaded trains per day I don't think it will ever be built.
beaulieu wrote: I think this decision also implies that the CN + EJ&E will also be considered a "significant" transaction which must displease CN. As far as DM&E and IC&E becoming "Class I" carriers as a result of this transaction, probably only if the PRB extension is built. As far as the CP and the Mayo Clinic goes, I think the CP has two choices, either fight Mayo to the bitter end, or fight for the option to route coal via the IC&E. A Rochester bypass would almost certainly be so expensive as to make the PRB project unfeaseable, the economics of operating via the IC&E may also be too expensive to make the PRB project happen. The IANR is probably looking for what it can get out of the deal, perhaps trackage rights to Chicago.
As far as the CP and the Mayo Clinic goes, I think the CP has two choices, either fight Mayo to the bitter end, or fight for the option to route coal via the IC&E. A Rochester bypass would almost certainly be so expensive as to make the PRB project unfeaseable, the economics of operating via the IC&E may also be too expensive to make the PRB project happen.
nanaimo73 wrote:CP is the *good* railroad with red AC locomotives and the steam engine. CN is the *bad* railroad with black locomotives, a long string of accidents, and the former WC and IC.
Go here for my rail shots! http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=9296
Building the CPR Kootenay division in N scale, blog here: http://kootenaymodelrailway.wordpress.com/
Convicted One wrote: Bucyrus wrote: If there were cooperation, what would be the end result on the ground? Thinking about that some more over the evening, I have one thought that I will offer. As I recall, there is some restriction or prohibition that blocks DM&E from routing coal trains over the southerly ICE route...am I remembering that correctly?
Bucyrus wrote: If there were cooperation, what would be the end result on the ground?
If there were cooperation, what would be the end result on the ground?
Thinking about that some more over the evening, I have one thought that I will offer. As I recall, there is some restriction or prohibition that blocks DM&E from routing coal trains over the southerly ICE route...am I remembering that correctly?
It's not exactly blocked, but rather the STB has ruled that the railroad will have to go through the whole Environmental Impact Statement process again to route coal trains over those lines. Also part of that route is over trackage rights on the Iowa Northern which adds complications, and then there is Calmar Hill to contend with.
The railroad should perhaps have considered partnering with Mayo, to get that prohibition undone. Mayo might have proven to be a formidable ally.Using the route as currently planned, the end of the haul is Winona, correct? with a loading to barge? They get a longer haul via the southern alternative, meaning more $$$. And isn't there even to possibility of hauling all the way to Chicago via this route, permitting hand-off to the eastern roads? just a thought.
The railroad should perhaps have considered partnering with Mayo, to get that prohibition undone. Mayo might have proven to be a formidable ally.
Using the route as currently planned, the end of the haul is Winona, correct? with a loading to barge? They get a longer haul via the southern alternative, meaning more $$$. And isn't there even to possibility of hauling all the way to Chicago via this route, permitting hand-off to the eastern roads? just a thought.
No there would be no barge terminal at Winona. The DM&E joins the CP mainline at Winona, which then gives access to two large powerplants in Wisconsin currently, and potential access to a third one. Also the IC&E would require heavy rebuilding all the way to Chicago, while the CP mainline would not require substantial investment for many years. The 43 coal trains per day of course is pure garbage, BNSF and UP aren't going to rollover and play dead, and CP would have no advantage in serving plants in the Southern US. Indeed with Eastern powerplants being forced to install expensive pollution control equipment the eastern market will probably grow only as Applachian mines become too expensive. If CP cannot justify the PRB extension on something near 10 loaded trains per day I don't think it will ever be built.
Re; Kevin Schieffer and the Mayo Clinic, I think the only reason there is a problem between them is because the Mayo Clinic won't settle for anything less than a Rochester bypass, and Kevin Schieffer couldn't give them that, I don't think CP can give them that either, and therein lies the problem.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.