Trains.com

BN Move to Fort Worth

17546 views
49 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: Northern New Mexico
  • 465 posts
Posted by rjemery on Monday, August 3, 2009 2:05 PM

passengerfan
The Santa Fe El Pasoan you are talking about used steam ejector A/C from the boiler in the E-8Am, Santa fe who operated through some of the hottest territory in the US was a great believer in the Steam ejector system to operate the heat and A/C in the trailing consists of all of there passenger trains except some branch line and of course the Santa Fe Hi-Levels and the Big domes. These latter cars were built with self contained air conditioning systems. They still received heat from the diesels boiler. --Al - in - Stockton

I trust your judgment more than my memory, but why then have only an A unit in Summer, and A-B units in Winter?  IIRC, at most, the consist was four cars:  baggage, mail, coach combo, and coach.  One of the cargo cars may have served REA as well.  In Winter, the consist was down to three cars.  At times, there were two full coaches, both Summer and Winter.

Another nostalgic observation:  The crew (conductor, trainman, flagman, etc.) had to be the oldest on the railroad.  They were all well into their 60's, if not older, and I would have thought well past retirement.  I figure they were called out of retirement to cover the El Pasoan run -- all very nice and polite, a hallmark of Santa Fe service.

Not so old were the crews on the Chiefs and El Capitan, who were younger but still sagacious.  Except for the Super Chief, I rode them all and look back fondly on those trips.  The only rudeness I encountered on Santa Fe trains was the dining car staff.  Good food, lousy service.  That's one aspect that sticks out clearly even after 50+ years.

RJ Emery near Santa Fe, NM

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,810 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Monday, August 3, 2009 8:45 AM

Railway Man

Murphy Siding
       Concerning dispatching,  I've always wondered why it didn't become more of a computer program type thing.  Computer programs are math based.  It seems like there would be a way to input all pertinent information into a program that would figure out a lot of the answers about meets, speeds, hours of service, etc.. 

    If a computer program took care of that part, couldn't the dispatcher's exprience and intuition work to update info and fine tune the system?  Remember algebra class?  If a train leaves Buffalo at 7:10, going east at 40 mph, and another train leaves Chicago at 8:30, foing west at 55 mph, where would......Evil 

It sure isn't for lack of trying or lack of desire.  If you could invent the software, name your price.  Fair warning -- lots of people from various super-genius high-tech brain-trusts have thought it was a simple problem, have tried and failed, and millions of dollars have been thrown at the problem with nothing to show for it.

RWM 

 

A couple weeks ago RWM had a post wherein he essentially responded to this question in more detail.  Basically he said - if I recall correctly - that the software had not yet gotten beyond a 'Level 4' of difficulty or capability, whereas a fully-qualified and capable human dispatcher was running at the equivalent of a 'Level 20'.  I'll see if I can find and link that post sometime later today.

EDIT - Here's that exchange [because the context is necessary to properly understand the reply, I think] - from the top of Page 2 of 4 [currently] of the ''Re: New Technology and The Death of an Occupation'' thread on 07-17-2009 at 3:37 PM and 7:11 PM, respectively, at - http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/p/157075/1732851.aspx#1732851

[emphasis added - PDN]

Railway Man:
(PTC is not an automated train-control system . . .  FYI).

RWM

PaulDNorthJr
  What is the difference, then, aside from the semantics ?  I infer that PTC is primarily restrictive only - it will tell or make sure the train slows down or stops as much as is needed to assure safey, but doesn't do anything to tell it or make it 'Go'.  In contrast, an automated train control system would have that latter 'Go' function equally important as the 'Slow' and 'Stop'.  Is this correct ?  Or, is there some other nuance that I'm missing here ?

- PDN.  

 

Railway Man

Paul:

Three steps happen before a train turns a wheel:

  1. Dispatching decision is made: train is given priority, direction, and time of movement.  All of these are "dispatcher decisions" and are on-going decision 24/7/365 for all the trains on the system.  The decision matrix that adjusts each train in relation to all other trains is constantly readjusted.  This step has only been successfully automated at the simplest and most basic level, e.g., simple meet/pass logic for a single-track railway, and following moves in a double-track subway-type system.  Level 1 -- The meet/pass logic simply looks at which train will reach the siding first, and it will take the siding.  Level 2 - Determine if either train cannot take the siding (e.g., weight restrictions).  Level 3 -- Are there grade crossings in the siding that cannot be blocked.  Level 4 - Determine which train has priority and it holds the main.  Level 4 -- compare the hours of service remaining for each crew (don't hold the guy who's about to hog out) versus any penalty for service commitment for each train, and compare the financial costs.  Level 5 -- look at effects on the next following train each direction.  Level 6 -- look at effects on the next trains back.  Level 7 -- look at effects on motive power and crew utilization.  A very good dispatcher reaches back to level 20 or so.  The software usually blows up when it tries to think about level 4.
  2. Train-control decision is made:  Think of this as the ABS-APB system.  It asks, OK, now we have a priority, but is it safe to move the train?  APB-ABS logic is very simple, and it's effectively been automated at a naive level since the nineteen-teens.  But it only looks at its instant case in front of it; it does not look beyond the adjacent block.  In other words, each block is only informed by the block on either side of it.
  3. Train-handling decision is made.  This is what the engineer does.  He has an authority (the dispatching decision); he has a signal or TWC (the train-control decision), now he accelerates, decelerates, and maintains speed accordingly.

PTC as it is now envisioned is simply a safety overlay on Step 2 (train-control) and Step 3 (train-handling).  It doesn't know diddly about priority or direction or juggling competing economic needs, which are accomplished in Step 1.  In the future, there will be stand-alone PTC which will simply envelop the existing ABS-APB system of Step 2, but fundamentally all it does is replace the field hardware with other hardware that does the same exact thing (but at lower cost for buying and installing the hardware).  No additional automation has occurred.

The simplest place to automate is Step 3, because automation at this step doesn't have to know anything about Step 2 or Step 1, it just has to obey its rules. In other words, it consists of blocks of software.  Block 1 is a recapitulation of GCOR or NORAC or whatever rule book applies.  Block 2 is a recapitulation of the railway's train-handing rules, using real-world inputs about train TPOB, braking horsepower, the vertical and horizontal profile en route, weather and temperature, and some expert-level decision-making matrices.

It's possible to automate Step 1, 2, and 3, but only in a very simple, very repititious system, where train operations are about as complicated as dropping identical marbles down a tube into a bucket, one after another.  Basically, that's a description of the Pilbara iron-ore lines.  Trying to do this on a complex corridor with variable operations, where all the marbles are different sizes, weights, densities, smoothness, and shape, and they all want to end up in different buckets, and there's some trying to climb back up the tube ... that's a little harder.

RWM 

 

In the meantime, I'll observe that the DS' role seems to be like playing chess.  Now some of us may know that within the last few years, IBM finally got a computer - 'Big Blue', I believe it's called - to approach the performance of human chess 'grand masters', and maybe even beat them with some frequency.  But keep in mind that 'playing field' is limited to a neat square of 64 identical square boxes, with a specific structured hierarchy, relationships, a discrete naming order, and most importantly - limited possible moves by each piece, etc.

But the DS' job is more like chess in 3 dimensions [recall depictions of that in the Star Trek TV series and in the 1st Star Wars movie].  And those 3 dimensions are not all spatial - only 2 are.  Specifically, the 1st and principal spatial dimension is linear or longitudinal = the length of the railroad line.  The 2nd and subordinate spatial dimension is adjacent or lateral - the 2nd tracks, sidings, yards, branches, etc.  The 3rd dimension is time - how the location of trains changes in those other 2 dimensions with time, and predictions of same, and all of the possible permutations and combinations.  In view of that, the technical challenge would be for a computer's capabilities to be upgraded to deal with all that, on a scale far more vast and intricate than the comparatively simple chess board.

- Paul North.

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Central Valley California
  • 2,841 posts
Posted by passengerfan on Monday, August 3, 2009 6:36 AM

The Santa Fe El Pasoan you are talking about used steam ejector A/C from the boiler in the E-8Am, Santa fe who operated through some of the hottest territory in the US was a great believer in the Steam ejector system to operate the heat and A/C in the trailing consists of all of there passenger trains except some branch line and of course the Santa Fe Hi-Levels and the Big domes. These latter cars were built with self contained air conditioning systems. They still received heat from the diesels boiler.

Al - in - Stockton    

  • Member since
    November 2007
  • 2,989 posts
Posted by Railway Man on Monday, August 3, 2009 12:04 AM

Murphy Siding

     Concerning dispatching,  I've always wondered why it didn't become more of a computer program type thing.  Computer programs are math based.  It seems like there would be a way to input all pertinent information into a program that would figure out a lot of the answers about meets, speeds, hours of service, etc.. 

    If a computer program took care of that part, couldn't the dispatcher's exprience and intuition work to update info and fine tune the system?  Remember algebra class?  If a train leaves Buffalo at 7:10, going east at 40 mph, and another train leaves Chicago at 8:30, foing west at 55 mph, where would......Evil

It sure isn't for lack of trying or lack of desire.  If you could invent the software, name your price.  Fair warning -- lots of people from various super-genius high-tech brain-trusts have thought it was a simple problem, have tried and failed, and millions of dollars have been thrown at the problem with nothing to show for it.

RWM

  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: Northern New Mexico
  • 465 posts
Posted by rjemery on Sunday, August 2, 2009 6:53 PM

AgentKid
Back in the day, air conditioning was a self contained apparatus on each car. It would either be an electric fan blowing air over block's of ice (ice activated air conditioning) (same type of block as used in refer's) or electric powered refrigeration (mechanical air conditioning).

Then my recollection is probably correct.  The El Pasoan in summer was frequently operated -- perhaps all the time -- with just one A unit.  Each coach, usually two, then had its own independent a/c unit.

I do recall reading that CNW was among the first if not the first to implement air conditioning on its crack 400 trains.  What I found intriguing is that the a/c was steam-powered!

Regarding the El Pasoan and waiting at dusk for it to pass at one grade crossing, I was struck by the brightness of the rotating headlight.  Even when still below the horizon, that approaching light was unmistakable.  Given that experience, I find it hard to fathom anyone involved in a grade crossing accident saying "I didn't see the train coming."  One would have had to be blind not to have seen it.

Also, FWIW, in those days, I believe the El Pasoan did not travel faster than 60 mph.  The route between El Paso and Albuquerque was anything but an air line.
 

RJ Emery near Santa Fe, NM

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,279 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Sunday, August 2, 2009 6:02 PM

Murphy Siding

BaltACD

Murphy Siding

     Concerning dispatching,  I've always wondered why it didn't become more of a computer program type thing.  Computer programs are math based.  It seems like there would be a way to input all pertinent information into a program that would figure out a lot of the answers about meets, speeds, hours of service, etc.. 

    If a computer program took care of that part, couldn't the dispatcher's exprience and intuition work to update info and fine tune the system?  Remember algebra class?  If a train leaves Buffalo at 7:10, going east at 40 mph, and another train leaves Chicago at 8:30, foing west at 55 mph, where would......Evil

A engine fails at Erie, there is a UDE at Ashtabula, the conductor gets sick in Cleveland, a Hot Box detector stops the train at Sandusky, the 30 car pick up at Kendallville is really 60.....Algebraic equations please?  The operation of each and every train is it's own novella for the Train Dispatcher to weave together into the fabric of a fluid operating operation.



    I'm not saying that the dispatcher could be replaced by a computer program.  I'm asking why *some* of what the dispatcher does can't be *aided* by use of some sort of computer program?  In my other post,  I said that I could forsee some type of program that let a dispatcher enter in as much pertinent information as possible.  As things changed, like in your example above, couldn't the dispatcher update the info in the program?
  
     When A engine fails at Erie, for example, the dispatcher must do some sort of figuring, to determine how that affects everything else.  Couldn't a computer program be devised to aid the dispatcher in that area?  I'm thinking of a tool, to aid the dispatcher.  I don't think anything will be able to replace the experience, intuition and gut instincts of a good dispatcher.

Union Switch, and I suspect all the other CAD (Computer Aided Dispatching) system have had 'automatic' features in their software from day one.  Even when all the data fed to them, their performance was abysmal, getting more that one dispatcher in serious trouble.  That I am aware of, USS did not expend much if any effort in attempting to rectify the issues that were identified.

As I stated the operation of each train creates it's own novella of issues, many are similar, many are not and the operation of one does not predict the operation of any other train.  There are trains from hades and trains that seemingly fly across the sub-division.  To paraphrase Forest Gump - Trains are like a box of chocolates....you never know which one you will get.

Engine fails...first thing the Dispatcher asks...can you make it to destination, if not how much farther can you haul the train with working power....Oh you can't move at a all and you are on single track.  Next the Dispatcher searches for other trains on the sub-division....do they have any excess power...Yes/No.  Can the train be shoved?  Yes/No (Yardmasters in the flat lands never consider that a train may need to be shoved from the rear and have HAZMAT improperly place on the rear of the train that prevent it from being shoved).  Does the train opposing from the head end of the train in trouble have enough total power to get the trouble train to the next point that the train can be cleared to await working power, presuming, that none of the other trains on the sub-division has excess power.  This is not computer work, this is real time human communication between all the parties involved.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    August 2008
  • From: Calgary AB. Canada
  • 2,298 posts
Posted by AgentKid on Sunday, August 2, 2009 4:40 PM

rjemery
Would steam from a B unit power air conditioning in the coaches?

Back in the day, air conditioning was a self contained apparatus on each car. It would either be an electric fan blowing air over block's of ice (ice activated air conditioning) (same type of block as used in refer's) or electric powered refrigeration (mechanical air conditioning).

The electricity was supplied by a truck mounted generator feeding batteries on each car. This powered the light's as well.

I will digress here for a moment, even though it is an observation more appropriate for the Classic Trains forum. I have always thought it is cool that even to this day on the Budd built observation cars used by VIA on "The Canadian", there are still mounts for kerosene lantern markers in case the electric ones that used to be powered by the generator failed. Even in this HEP era.

AgentKid

 

So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.

"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere"  CP Rail Public Timetable

"O. S. Irricana"

. . . __ . ______

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Sunday, August 2, 2009 3:12 PM

BaltACD

Murphy Siding

     Concerning dispatching,  I've always wondered why it didn't become more of a computer program type thing.  Computer programs are math based.  It seems like there would be a way to input all pertinent information into a program that would figure out a lot of the answers about meets, speeds, hours of service, etc.. 

    If a computer program took care of that part, couldn't the dispatcher's exprience and intuition work to update info and fine tune the system?  Remember algebra class?  If a train leaves Buffalo at 7:10, going east at 40 mph, and another train leaves Chicago at 8:30, foing west at 55 mph, where would......Evil

A engine fails at Erie, there is a UDE at Ashtabula, the conductor gets sick in Cleveland, a Hot Box detector stops the train at Sandusky, the 30 car pick up at Kendallville is really 60.....Algebraic equations please?  The operation of each and every train is it's own novella for the Train Dispatcher to weave together into the fabric of a fluid operating operation.



    I'm not saying that the dispatcher could be replaced by a computer program.  I'm asking why *some* of what the dispatcher does can't be *aided* by use of some sort of computer program?  In my other post,  I said that I could forsee some type of program that let a dispatcher enter in as much pertinent information as possible.  As things changed, like in your example above, couldn't the dispatcher update the info in the program?
  
     When A engine fails at Erie, for example, the dispatcher must do some sort of figuring, to determine how that affects everything else.  Couldn't a computer program be devised to aid the dispatcher in that area?  I'm thinking of a tool, to aid the dispatcher.  I don't think anything will be able to replace the experience, intuition and gut instincts of a good dispatcher.

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: Northern New Mexico
  • 465 posts
Posted by rjemery on Sunday, August 2, 2009 11:23 AM
CSSHEGEWISCH
One of the reasons that a lot of the shorter ATSF trains got an A-B set on the front end was because the F3A's and F7A's were not equipped with steam generators, while the boosters were.  An exception would be the Denver-La Junta trains, which had E units assigned.


I appreciate the added details.  In the late 1950's early 1960's, I seem to recall the El Pasoan was powered only by an A unit in summer.  Would steam from a B unit power air conditioning in the coaches?  If so, then my recollection is wrong, as the coaches were definitely air conditioned in summer.

RJ Emery near Santa Fe, NM

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Sunday, August 2, 2009 10:33 AM

One of the reasons that a lot of the shorter ATSF trains got an A-B set on the front end was because the F3A's and F7A's were not equipped with steam generators, while the boosters were.  An exception would be the Denver-La Junta trains, which had E units assigned.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: Northern New Mexico
  • 465 posts
Posted by rjemery on Saturday, August 1, 2009 5:36 PM
BaltACD
A engine fails at Erie ...

Reminds me of how the Santa Fe ran its passenger trains, always with a minimum ABBA on the point.  None of the passenger trains ever needed more than three diesels to pull over the mountains, but management would not tolerate any preventable delays to the rigid 46-hour Chicago-LA schedule as well as to other passenger destinations.  That extra unit was assigned to protect against a power failure enroute.  Even the smallish Albquerque-El Paso train often included a B unit for the same reason.

That same mentality seems to have carried over into BNSF operations if not other roads as well.  BNSF symbol freights, especially intermodals, are on a tight no-fail schedule that includes extra power to protect against engine dropouts enroute.

UPSP, at major refueling stops, inspects each any every wheel of all cars of all trains to guard against breakdowns.  Slowly, the average speed of a freight car in transit has been increasing y/y.  I'm sure other roads take comparable measures.
 
BaltACD
... there is a UDE at Ashtabula, the conductor gets sick in Cleveland, a Hot Box detector stops the train at Sandusky, the 30 car pick up at Kendallville is really 60.....Algebraic equations please?  The operation of each and every train is it's own novella for the Train Dispatcher to weave together into the fabric of a fluid operating operation.

Like it or not, dispatching is becoming more algorithmic.  Woe unto somebody who earlier failed to detect a potential maintenance problem with that hotbox car when it was at the last yard.  Same with the unscheduled extra 30 car pickup.  So many trains with so many cars have to move through established checkpoints every hour and/or every day -- OR ELSE.  Computers have also been useful in identifying where and what bottlenecks exist so management can take action.  Lots of exceptions, I know.

Nevertheless, in railroading, time is money.  The roads would not be investing billions in infrastructure improvements if it were not.

RJ Emery near Santa Fe, NM

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,279 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Saturday, August 1, 2009 3:48 PM

Murphy Siding

     Concerning dispatching,  I've always wondered why it didn't become more of a computer program type thing.  Computer programs are math based.  It seems like there would be a way to input all pertinent information into a program that would figure out a lot of the answers about meets, speeds, hours of service, etc.. 

    If a computer program took care of that part, couldn't the dispatcher's exprience and intuition work to update info and fine tune the system?  Remember algebra class?  If a train leaves Buffalo at 7:10, going east at 40 mph, and another train leaves Chicago at 8:30, foing west at 55 mph, where would......Evil

A engine fails at Erie, there is a UDE at Ashtabula, the conductor gets sick in Cleveland, a Hot Box detector stops the train at Sandusky, the 30 car pick up at Kendallville is really 60.....Algebraic equations please?  The operation of each and every train is it's own novella for the Train Dispatcher to weave together into the fabric of a fluid operating operation.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Friday, July 31, 2009 10:38 PM

     Concerning dispatching,  I've always wondered why it didn't become more of a computer program type thing.  Computer programs are math based.  It seems like there would be a way to input all pertinent information into a program that would figure out a lot of the answers about meets, speeds, hours of service, etc.. 

    If a computer program took care of that part, couldn't the dispatcher's exprience and intuition work to update info and fine tune the system?  Remember algebra class?  If a train leaves Buffalo at 7:10, going east at 40 mph, and another train leaves Chicago at 8:30, foing west at 55 mph, where would......Evil

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    March 2002
  • 9,265 posts
Posted by edblysard on Friday, July 31, 2009 6:10 PM

Yeah...its like that....

mbkcs

Maybe BNSF came to Fort Worth and stayed because they drove a bit down the road from their future headquarters, and there, with their feet planted solidly on a rise of Texas clay and myth, watched the yellow, gold and reds of dusk blend into the bluest of skies brightened by the occasional lightning of an approaching thunderstorm and in that moment, knew they were home.

Cowtown...how I miss it.

tina

23 17 46 11

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Mpls/St.Paul
  • 13,892 posts
Posted by wjstix on Friday, July 31, 2009 4:54 PM

Well about these reasons for moving to Texas:

Jacqueline Smith

Farrah Fawcett

Eva Longoria

Jennifer Garner

Morgan Fairchild

Jennifer Love Hewitt

Crystal Bernard

Rene Zellweger

Lisa Hartman

Valerie Perrine

Debbie Reynolds

Ann Miller

Cowboy

Stix
  • Member since
    March 2006
  • From: I see volcanoes.
  • 117 posts
Posted by mbkcs on Friday, July 31, 2009 11:42 AM

Maybe BNSF came to Fort Worth and stayed because they drove a bit down the road from their future headquarters, and there, with their feet planted solidly on a rise of Texas clay and myth, watched the yellow, gold and reds of dusk blend into the bluest of skies brightened by the occasional lightning of an approaching thunderstorm and in that moment, knew they were home.

Cowtown...how I miss it.

tina

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,810 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Friday, July 31, 2009 8:55 AM

So at least to the executives in his segment of the hotel biz - ''The grass wasn't 'greener' on the other side of the fence''  ?

- PDN.

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Mpls/St.Paul
  • 13,892 posts
Posted by wjstix on Friday, July 31, 2009 8:15 AM

Boyd

 When you take the total amount of tax dollars collected to the state and divide it by the number of residents Minnesota is almost always in the top 5 highest taxed states in the nation.

The trade-off being Minnesota also always ranks at the very top for quality of life issues like public schools, health care and other services. I recall someone telling me they went to a national teacher's conference and how a Texas school administrator was boasting that his school district now was in the 51st percentile of public schools in the nation, so was (slightly) above average. One year my old school district in Minnesota fell down the the 89th percentile and the school districts top leaders were very lucky not to get fired !!

It may just be a life-style difference, Minnesota is probably one of the few states to pass a statewide referendum to raise taxes Shock - the sales tax increase that just took effect this month, the proceeds of the increase are targeted towards clean water and other environmental issues.

Paul D North

"Pick a place where a lot of the executives won't want to move." . . . "It was an executive downsizing, pure and simple," says author Lawrence H. Kaufman, who has written an authorized history of what is now the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway with the title Leaders Count. [emphasis added - PDN]

Curt Carlson, owner of the Carlson Companies and the Radisson hotel chain, once said his second biggest problem with personnel was that when they'd try to transfer an employee to the main office in the Twin Cities, the lost a lot of people from around the country who didn't want to move to Minnesota. He said the no. 1 biggest problem was that later in their careers, people would move up the ladder and be asked to move from Minnesota to another location...he said at that point, many people (most not native Minnesotans) would quit and take another job rather than move from their adopted home. Smile

Stix
  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Back home on the Chi to KC racetrack
  • 2,011 posts
Posted by edbenton on Friday, July 31, 2009 8:10 AM

I can AGREE with the taxing also.  That and wanting to get rid of some higer level Executives that were close to retirement and would not want to move.  I lived there for ONE year and had enough of that  state.  I thought IL was bad for TAXES then I lived in MN for one year.  Hell I was Making 16 bucks and hour my ex-wife was making 12.50 an hour and COMBINED we still could not afford to LIVE THERE.  I had already paid sales tax on my car I took up there THEY WANTED ME TO PAY SALES TAX AGAIN ON IT. 

Always at war with those that think OTR trucking is EASY.
  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,810 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Friday, July 31, 2009 4:54 AM

Article is dated Mon., Oct. 3, 2005.  Some excerpts: 

"Pick a place where a lot of the executives won't want to move." . . . "It was an executive downsizing, pure and simple," says author Lawrence H. Kaufman, who has written an authorized history of what is now the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway with the title Leaders Count. [emphasis added - PDN]

"Of all the carriers, BNSF has done the best job of changing its culture away from the old fixed-rail way of thinking to realizing they are in the service business," Kaufman says.

Robert Townsend recommended the same tactic in similar words in his late 1960s management book, Up the Organization!

Thanks for providing the link.

- Paul North.

 

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    March 2006
  • From: I see volcanoes.
  • 117 posts
Posted by mbkcs on Friday, July 31, 2009 1:25 AM

http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/259486/new_book_sheds_light_on_history_of_bnsf/

This is from a Fort Worth Star Telegram article on why the BNSF moved to Fort Worth. 

tina

  • Member since
    August 2008
  • From: Cape Coral, Florida
  • 412 posts
Posted by billio on Thursday, July 30, 2009 8:11 AM

Bob-Fryml

billio

The company's top management remained quite inbred for many years.  It also remained in New York.  After Harriman's death, the Chairman of the Board reins were passed to his friend and lawyer, Robert S. Lovett.  When Lovett passed on, E. Roland Harriman, EH's oldest son, took the reins.  When E. Roland retired into a seat on UP's Board, he nominated Robert A. Lovett, son of Robert S., to take over . After him came Frank Barnett, a confidante and lawyer in the city to pick them up.  Another Harriman in-law or grandson (I forget which) who held a position on UP's board was Elbridge H. Gerry.  Presumably, all these folk were New Yorkers.  Incentive for any of these boys to move to Omaha?  Zero. 

No, no, no, billio.  W. Averell Harriman was Edward Henry's older son.  Averell was Chairman of the Union Pacific Railroad decades before Roland took over.  The older son also served as U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union during WW2 and served a term as Governor of New York as well. 

Also, the director and BBH partner to whom you refer was Elbridge T. Gerry.  In recent decades an Elbridge T. Gerry, Jr. (also a BBH partner) served on the Board.

Before the Revolutionary War, Massachusetts had a governor named Elbridge T. Gerry.  This politico was a master at carving up political jurisdictions for political gain.  The practice we know today as Gerrymandering was named after him.  Now whether this Elbridge T. Gerry and the aforementioned 20th century Elbridge T. Gerrys are related, I don't know.

 Thanks for the correction.  Averill did, just after his graduation from Yale, become vice president of Union Pacific.  Pays to have punched the right job tickets.

As for the Gerrys, Elbridge is "descended from a signer of the Declaration of Independence," who WAS the Gerry in gerrymandering.  Incidently, his name is pronounced with a hard G, as in Gary, while the political machination is pronounced like a J, as in Jerry.

  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: St. Paul, Minnesota
  • 2,116 posts
Posted by Boyd on Thursday, July 30, 2009 2:06 AM

The exit from Minnesota is because of taxes, taxes and more taxes. When you take the total amount of tax dollars collected to the state and divide it by the number of residents Minnesota is almost always in the top 5 highest taxed states in the nation. Last I heard it was #3. As for the maintanace base paid for by the state of Minnesota for Northwest Airlines,,,, they never paid for it and the state got it back. It happens every year,,,, prominent businesses leave this state after they wake up or can't take it anymore.  The majority of the legislators  in this state are dreaming up higher and higher taxes every year.

Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: US
  • 733 posts
Posted by Bob-Fryml on Wednesday, July 29, 2009 7:32 PM

billio

The company's top management remained quite inbred for many years.  It also remained in new York.  After Harriman's death, the Chairman of the Board reins were passed to his friend and lawyer, Robert S. Lovett.  When Lovett passed on, E. Roland Harriman, EH's oldest son, took the reins.  When E. Roland retired into a seat on UP's Board, he nominated Robert A. Lovett, son of Robert S., to take over . After him came Frank Barnett, a confidante and lawyer in the city to pick them up.  Another Harriman in-law or grandson (I forget which) who held a position on UP's board was Elbridge H. Gerry.  Presumably, all these folk were New Yorkers.  Incentive for any of these boys to move to Omaha?  Zero. 

No, no, no, billio.  W. Averell Harriman was Edward Henry's older son.  Averell was Chairman of the Union Pacific Railroad decades before Roland took over.  The older son also served as U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union during WW2 and served a term as Governor of New York as well. 

Also, the director and BBH partner to whom you refer was Elbridge T. Gerry.  In recent decades an Elbridge T. Gerry, Jr. (also a BBH partner) served on the Board.

Before the Revolutionary War, Massachusetts had a governor named Elbridge T. Gerry.  This politico was a master at carving up political jurisdictions for political gain.  The practice we know today as Gerrymandering was named after him.  Now whether this Elbridge T. Gerry and the aforementioned 20th century Elbridge T. Gerrys are related, I don't know.

  • Member since
    July 2003
  • From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
  • 13,757 posts
Posted by cacole on Wednesday, July 29, 2009 5:46 PM

 Headquarters moves of this type usually result from financial incentives offered by the city, county, or state in question, together with tax breaks, local labor costs, and other factors.

  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: Northern New Mexico
  • 465 posts
Posted by rjemery on Wednesday, July 29, 2009 4:41 PM
aricat
One thing that amazes me still is compared to Penn Central how well the merger went; or did it?

The merger worked extremely well.  I was there the day they knocked down the dividing wall in St. Paul.  For years, NP and GN were trying to merge, but were thwarted by government anti-trust regulators.  Looking forward to the day when they would finally be allowed to merge, the two roads adopted all the same forms, policies, billing and payroll systems, operations, computers, computer programs, managment structure, rolling stock, etc.  For all intents and purposes, each road was a clone of the other.

Penn Central was a shotgun marriage, with competing systems and huge integration headaches, a merger doomed to failure despite the considerable management skill of Alfred E. Perlman, to my mind one of the great American railroad managers of all time.  His efforts were largely pushed aside as the Red Team (PRR) gained control over the Green Team (NYC).
 

RJ Emery near Santa Fe, NM

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,810 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Wednesday, July 29, 2009 1:48 PM

lex466 - OK, thanks for responding to my follow-up questions.  The correlation of forces to move the BN's HQ to FW were strong, it seems. 

aricat
  [snip] One thing that amazes me still is compared to Penn Central how well the [GN - NP - CBQ - SPS] merger went; or did it?  They did establish their preferred freight route early on, but just how were issues like who processes payroll, or pays corporate taxes, GN or NP's employees. [snip]

I believe and recall that the merger went pretty well.  After it cleared the final legal challenges before the U.S. Supreme Court, it technically went into effect on March 1, 1970, although it took quite a while - several years, really - for the actual full implementation to occur.  I owned a [very] little NP stock back then, and was kind of holding my breath when PC filed for bankruptcy less than 4 months later, on June 21, 1970.  Perhaps mindful of the 'green team vs. red team' and other dysfunctions that by then had clearly shown to have severely handicapped PC, BN seemed to work hard to avoid those same traps. 

If you want to know more, in the BNSF book by Brian Solomon that I referenced above [MBI, 2005], there's a 2-page interview with Robert W. Downing - BN President, 1971-73, COO 1973-76 - on the subject of the merger.  I remember that he said the delays due to the legal appeals of the merger worked in their favor - it gave them more time to prepare and integrate things.  Also, that the merger implementation process went slowly and 'incrementally', by design.  There were some things that could be done on 'Day 1', but many things that needed to wait until new facilities and connections were built.  One good example of that which comes to my mind is the Latah Creek high bridge on the western side of Spokane, which wasn't completed until 1974, if I recall correctly - and only then could the ex-GN's traffic through Spokane could be consolidated onto the ex-NP route.  Mr. Downing was still alive and healthy as of last fall - and may well still be - so there appears to be some resources on the Internet regarding this.  For example, here's the link to a little interview he gave to the Spokane newspaper dated Oct. 1, 2008, titled 'Engineering Success'  - http://www.spokesmanreview.com/tools/story_pf.asp?ID=262712 

- Paul North.

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    July 2004
  • 455 posts
Posted by aricat on Wednesday, July 29, 2009 12:50 PM

I checked an Official Guide and the Great Northern and the Northern Pacific were in the same building in St Paul; but you would never know it. The GN listed its address as 175 East Fourth Street St Paul Minnesota 55101; NP listed its address as Northern Pacific Building  5TH & Jackson Streets St Paul Minnesota 55101. Both GN and NP had offices in Seattle Washington, GN also maintained an office at 40 Wall Street in New York City. The building is still going strong.

One thing that amazes me still is compared to Penn Central how well the merger went; or did it?  They did establish their preferred freight route early on, but just how were issues like who processes payroll, or pays corporate taxes, GN or NP's employees. I noticed that the CB&Q President did step down at the time of the merger. Anyone whose company has been impacted by a merger knows how difficult this can be.

The Burlington served as the access to Chicago for both the NP and GN and the only connection that the Twin Cities- Chicago line had to the rest of the Burlington system was the Savanna to Galesburg secondary main or the GN line to Sioux City Iowa. BN may have figured that it would have to build a new facility in the Twin Cities to deal with what was an apparant clash of corporate cultures trying to work in the same building. Finding that location is easier said than done and BN had a strong bond to the Seattle area. The Frisco merger in 1980 I think changed the focus of the company. The Frisco had no connections to either the NP or GN only to the Burlington. Kansas City and St Louis are a long way from the Twin Cities. The move to Fort Worth was more to do with business not Minnesota taxes.

  • Member since
    August 2006
  • 655 posts
Posted by 466lex on Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:23 AM

Paul_D_North_Jr

466lex, thanks for those additional facts and insights.  I had my doubts that tax rates and breaks alone explained the location change - it seems as if the need for corporate culture changes are not recent modern management revelations, but were recognized as far back as then - some 25-plus years ago. 

But still - given that a change was going to occur, why move the BN headquarters to Fort Worth instead of to, say - St. Louis, Denver, Chicago, Kansas City as for the Operating Dept., Boise, Bozeman/ Billings/ Butte, etc. ?

Also - is that Frisco's Mr. Bill Thompson the same who was one of E. Hunter Harrison's mentors as recounted in Fred Frailey's lead article in this month's August 2009 Trains magazine ?

- Paul North.

Note that Mr. Drexel was from Texas.  He was certainly aware of the absence of personal income taxes in Texas.  And the absence of heavy winters in Texas.  And the generally lower cost of living in the Sun Belt.  And the dramatic growth potential of the region.  And the vastly superior air service at DFW airport.  Rapid improvement in communication/information technology made location at any single location on a railroad main line of minimal importance.  The list of favorable factors was long.  In Texas, anything was possible .....

 I smiled at Mr. Frailey's reticence about Mr. Thompson ... "his nickname is unprintable".  After all, "Trains" is a railroad magazine.  Pithy language goes with the territory!  Yes, Mr. Thompson was Mr. Harrison's mentor at Frisco and at BN.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

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