Toughest Challenge for Railroads in Coming Years ?

[henry6]

MP173

Henry:

I suggest you go to a local university library and spend an afternoon looking at the following items:

1.  Moody's Transportation Manuals from the early 1970's

2.  USRA Preliminary System Plan

3.  USRA Final System Plan

It is all there for digestion.

Don is one of the most intelligent and generous members of this forum.  He probably wont stand up for himself, but I will.  No more shouting at Don. 

Ed

 I do have a college education and know how to read. In fact read both USRA reports when they were published.  Since you're so  smart, why do you bring them up? They have nothing to do with the question posed nor about how CR management later acted!  If you want to put me  down, don't do it here.  I won't stand for it.  Don't make me look bad to make you and your political agenda look good.

[blownout cylinder]

henry6

 

 I do have a college education and know how to read. In fact read both USRA reports when they were published.  Since you're so smart, why do you bring them up? They have nothing to do with the question posed nor about how CR management later acted!  If you want to put me  down, don't do it here.  I won't stand for it.  Don't make me look bad to make you and your political agenda look good.

Merry Christmas--

Now can we get back to something a little more closer to the topic at hand than this kvetching about a moralistic word?

The issue is this--does anyone know of a more effective way of keeping more people working than going PTOOF? If the lines needed cut then that was what was done. According to the definitions herein posted this was not the case---rather have more people working than none at all--

[selector]

My judgement is that the term is not useful in this discussion.  Few of us are going to be able to get past it because of its common use in what some would call the "politics of envy."  As it is being offered/proffered to date, it is an attempt to label corporate methods of improving performance, gaining market share, or what-have-you, in politically charged ways.  In fact, it is an attempt to paint corporate culture in general, since railroads that succeed do much of what other successful businesses do.  You would be better off just defining "success", and leave it at that.  (Actually, no it wouldn't...we would quickly be back to square one when you think about it; some would not want to see corporations "succeed".)

So, please, find another term that won't stick in the throats of so many trying to swallow it and get on with the rest of the meal.

-Crandell

[Anonymous]

henry6

Look.  Somebody dropped the word greed here as to whether it was good or bad.  I used Conrail as an example of how itsr successful waccomplishment could be considered greed for the good from those who benefited while the areas which did not receive the benefit of Conrail , if effect lost service or got a lower level of service could consider the greed as detrimental. I DID NOT JUDGE: IT TOLD IT LIKE IT WAS, GAVE AN EQUAL AND BALANCED PORTAYAL OF WHAT HAPPENED WITHOUT JUDGEMENT OR COMMENT; IT SHOWED THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE RESULTS OF CONRAIL'S ACTIONS.  SEVERAL READ THEIR OWN OPINIONS INTO IT AND BLASTED ME FOR IT OR JUST WANT TO PICK AN ARGUEMENT FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUEMENT. UNFORTUNATELY TOO MANY OF THE READERS CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FACT AND OPINION BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN OPINIONS GETTING IN THE WAY.  If I am wrong here, then tell me so and I'll quit and end my subscriptions.

 

You are wrong because of your application of the term, greed to private business. 

[BT CPSO 266]

 Convincing the younger generation that the railroads are big part of transportation in this country. Whether it is in congress, colleges, or support from the general public. The younger generations in this country think freight and people move by two modes highways and airways. The 2 seconds 2 slow generation has to get it through their thick heads that if we don't invest in freight and high speed passenger rail, we are going to struggle in economically, have a lower quality of life, and end up paying for it eventually.

 I am from that generation and I plan on becoming a track supervisor for Norfolk Southern and I am planning on attending the Rail and transit engineering program at Penn State Altoona. I do hear hesitation in quite a few voices when I mention this.

[henry6]

GOOD BYE YOU BUNCH OF BIGOTED, ARGUMENTIVE, IGNORANTS.!   [comment deleted] DONT TELL ME I AM EITHER WRONG OR STUPID...I WILL  NOT PUT UP WITH IT...GO ON AND TELL YOUR LIES AND STIR YOUR POTS, I'M DONE WITH IT IT ALL HERE!

[edited by selector]

[blownout cylinder]

henry6

GOOD BYE YOU BUNCH OF BIGOTED, ARGUMENTIVE, IGNORANTS.!  YOU, BUCYRUS, ARE ONE OF THOSE WHO CAUSE TOO MUCH TROUBLE HERE.,  DONT TELL ME I AM EITHER WRONG OR STUPID...I WILL  NOT PUT UP WITH IT...GO ON AND TELL YOUR LIES AND STIR YOUR POTS, I'M DONE WITH IT IT ALL HERE!

Maybe we need to be a little more careful-----

Me thinks we backed him into a corner. Sometimes I think that it might be a better idea if we stepped on the use of greed and stuff earlier.

And to target one person--what was that about ad hominum attacks?

[Anonymous]

 

 

henry6

GOOD BYE YOU BUNCH OF BIGOTED, ARGUMENTIVE, IGNORANTS.!  DONT TELL ME I AM EITHER WRONG OR STUPID...I WILL  NOT PUT UP WITH IT...GO ON AND TELL YOUR LIES AND STIR YOUR POTS, I'M DONE WITH IT IT ALL HERE!

Henry,

In the interest of accuracy, I did not say you are stupid.  

[edblysard]

henry6

GOOD BYE YOU BUNCH OF BIGOTED, ARGUMENTIVE, IGNORANTS.!    DONT TELL ME I AM EITHER WRONG OR STUPID...I WILL  NOT PUT UP WITH IT...GO ON AND TELL YOUR LIES AND STIR YOUR POTS, I'M DONE WITH IT IT ALL HERE!

Henry,

Maybe you need to swing by Skins R' us and pick up a thicker coat...

Then you might take a breath or two and rethink you approach to all of this.

I can't see where anyone called you stupid...the first use of that word was made in your post shown here, Bucyrus never used the word, at least not directed towards you.

Try to restate your position in a manner which better clarifies what you meant...greed, success and are totally subjective terms, it means different things to different people at different times.

And if this little dust up is all it takes to get you this riled up...well, it seems as if you are mad because others are not in agreement with you...

Ok, big hairy deal, so what?

I mean, is not disagreement something to be expected in any debate?

You are pulling an adolescent stunt here, and are saying that if others don't agree with you or recognize your point of view as the only correct or valid one, then you quit.

Which accomplishes what?

Will it change anyone's mind?

Probably not.

Does it prove your point of view?

No, not really, it only proves you quit when the going gets rough or people don't agree with you.

Does "quitting" win the debate for you?

No, because this isn't a contest to be won in the first place...it is a discussion amongst interested parties about challenges faced by railroads, and if you quit, the everything you tried to get across was written for no reason..

It seems as if you are resorting to the "blackmail" routine similar to that used by my 16 year old daughter...give me what I want or I will make you feel guilty.... Trust me, that dog don't hunt here.

So instead of quitting, which accomplishes nothing, try restating you point of view minus the anger.

[blownout cylinder]

Railway Man

Local public opposition to everything that might have the potential to negatively affect their quality of life, property values, tax burden, or way of life.  This is broad-band throughout the political, lifestyle, social, age, and ideological spectrum.  It's usually blamed on "environmentalists and yuppies" but they are actually not the worst-offenders.  This opposition makes it increasingly impossible to actually operate a railroad, much less expand or improve one.

Railway Man

Land use planning. Are we going to design land-use policies that favor individual, short-term, wealth creation?  Or good of the whole economy policies?  Or what?  This very much influences what the business of America is going to be in the future.  If we choose individual wealth creation, then railway traffic will definitely decline because individuals are going to favor using free highway infrastructure over not-free rail infrastructure.

I'm kind of kicking these two into the same ball park because they seem to fit so well. NIMBYism and the BANANA theory actually were very much in play with the single use zonal system currently being used. I tried finding some pre-1960's examples of such and found very few if any really existed. But as soon as single use came into play---there it was.

 RWM: I'm wondering about re-use of old industrial land along working ROW's ---putting aside the brownfield situation--if one found ways to encourage town/city councels into allowing for industrial reuse in a core area of a city---do you think that it could be possible to grow that industrial base for the RR industry itself?

[blownout cylinder]

henry6

If I am wrong here, then tell me so and I'll quit and end my subscriptions.

Left the door wide open here--

oops

[greyhounds]

blownout cylinder

henry6

GOOD BYE YOU BUNCH OF BIGOTED, ARGUMENTIVE, IGNORANTS.!    DONT TELL ME I AM EITHER WRONG OR STUPID...I WILL  NOT PUT UP WITH IT...GO ON AND TELL YOUR LIES AND STIR YOUR POTS, I'M DONE WITH IT IT ALL HERE!

Maybe we need to be a little more careful-----

Me thinks we backed him into a corner. Sometimes I think that it might be a better idea if we stepped on the use of greed and stuff earlier.

And to target one person--what was that about ad hominum attacks?

First, let me say that the only reason I wasn't out here arguing with Henry6 is that I don't feel well.

Second, at the time of Conrail's formation, the consensus was that it was impossible to operate a financially sucessful railroad in the Northeast.  (They all went broke for a reason.) The N&W was into New York via the Erie Lackawana, which it controlled.  They let the EL go into bankruptcy and let it go.  Nobody else wanted in there.  It was a looser. 

To make it not a "Looser" the rail network had to be reconfigured, among other things. For some reason, this rational behavior was labeled as an example of "Greed" by Henry6.  This reconfiguration was done by the US Government - Conrail was, after all a government owned railroad at the time.

People challened him on it, and stood their ground.  His position was untenable.  But he has some kind of emotional attachment to it.  So, rather than deal with what people were saying, he got mad and left. Ed just suggested some reading and Henry6 got mad at him.

I didn't see anyone do anything wrong. 

 

 

 

[blownout cylinder]

Greyhounds:  His attack on Bucyrus was what got me. A discussion was turned in his mind into an all out battle with someone he had issues with. I always thought that if one wanted to debate and was in a losing position one did not resort to the ad hominum attack---but then again---

[mudchicken]

Barry/ Blownout Cylinder:

Re-use of industrial land is difficult for a host of reasons:

(1) The scale of industry has changed and, in most cases, there has to be room for expansion/growth. Nature & planners abhor a vaccuum.  Railroads would not allow some of the old urban design schemes to exist anymore.

(2) Planning & permitting are horribly succeptable to political whims. Surveyors deal with planners on a regular basis ( and surveyors message boards are not kind to planners or GIS related abuse).

(3) Pre 1960 Static Planning and post 1960 Dynamic Planning have been the subject of many a textbook case of examining planning failures. (neither works well)

(4) Industry has major heartburn when they have to shoulder the cost of track for their exclusive use. Getting off the main track is an expensive proposition as is building runaround tracks and the like. (RWM, PaulNorth and I have all seen industry & developers come in with really poor ideas of what is required to adequately rail-serve a site, fed by so-called planning "professionals" with zero railroad expertise. Often, the railroad component is the first issue abandoned on a project.)

 

 

[schlimm]

 Perhaps this is the sort of thing that occurred at Conrail that some folks would raise questions over.  Workers conceded on wage cuts for three years while bosses got pretty good raises:

http://www.nytimes.com/1985/02/15/business/conrail-unions-reach-wage-pact-washington-feb-14-ap-conrail-10-unions.html

Then read this link (sorry, but it is a bit smudged):

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1356&dat=19850812&id=8OsTAAAAIBAJ&sjid=WAYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4746,6141651

[selector]

This seems simple to me.  Pay some fast thinkers to keep the thousands in work a year or three longer, or pay a lot more to many more people and close the place down in six months.  Hands up those who want to work for three years?

-Crandell

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Actually, I thought there was some merit to this part of henry6's rebuttal: 

henry6

  [snip]  The grocery store analogy is not equal as those using the closing store had access to the rremaining store and others.  A manufacturer with a rail siding lost his connection, as did mines, et. al.  In effect if you must ship or recieve from a fixed point, (and given that you use rail so it must be cost effective) and your rail line is gone, you don't have the choice of another railroad and the added cost of trucking and or transloading changes your pricing and marketing and maybe even put you out of business.  With the loss of grocery store, you still eat. . . . [snip] . . .  But for those who's rail lines, connections, and value of services were lost or downgraded forcing closing of businesses and deterioration of communities, then there could be some discussion about the "negativity" of Conrail's greed. 

I believe a big part of henry6's difficulty with ConRail's abandonments was that it didn't just walk away from some of those lines, and leave them in place for others to perhaps try to 'make a go' of them, even a net salvage value.  Instead, CR went further and totally removed the tracks and infrastructure, which practically precluded/ foreclosed any hope of future restoration of rail service - with a few exceptions, such as the NYS&W *(the New York portion), and the ex-EL WNY&PA* lines, etc.

- Paul North.

* = Minor edits.

[blownout cylinder]

selector

This seems simple to me.  Pay some fast thinkers to keep the thousands in work a year or three longer, or pay a lot more to many more people and close the place down in six months.  Hands up those who want to work for three years?

-Crandell

That is the thing about issues like this. The terms and choices seem to always be couched in these terms. The bosses always get more $$$ while the workers always get less or everyone gets a wack more.

The company I work for had a situation about 10 years ago where it was technically broke. It was into a series of loans and government grants just to keep the doors open--either that or several clients would be left out in the cold in terms of their healthcare. In this case--EVERYONE--including the boss, took a hit to their pocketbook. Through some careful rejigging/reorganizing and some forethought by a new set of managers---old ones being bought out and etc--there was a slow growth of the firm. A couple of years ago the owner begged out and sold the company to a group of managers within our company and set the company on even firmer ground. We changed a number of practices and records management methods and freed up a lot more $$$ to better serve our clientele.

I'd rather see people working than no jobs for anyone. If CONRAIL just closed up shop then not only would thousands be out of work but you would have spun off job losses throughout that entire area. A lot of people do tend to take the idea of the boss getting all the goodies and being a coooshie job a little too far. Those decisions made by them up there have to be taken more seriously and a little less cynically. 

Maybe what is needed is to start thinking in terms other than the either or that seems to pepper these things----

[blownout cylinder]

mudchicken

(1) The scale of industry has changed and, in most cases, there has to be room for expansion/growth. Nature & planners abhor a vaccuum.  Railroads would not allow some of the old urban design schemes to exist anymore.

And I find that that is useful in some ways. There are a few projects that seem to have worked out around here but i also seen a lot of failures. I think that this is all luck of the draw then.

mudchicken

(4) Industry has major heartburn when they have to shoulder the cost of track for their exclusive use. Getting off the main track is an expensive proposition as is building runaround tracks and the like. (RWM, PaulNorth and I have all seen industry & developers come in with really poor ideas of what is required to adequately rail-serve a site, fed by so-called planning "professionals" with zero railroad expertise. Often, the railroad component is the first issue abandoned on a project.)

 

This is a sticking point here--the question frequently is "And where is the RR guy?"---no one brings them on-board. Or there is a general lack of interest or desire to relate the RR to the development. RR as back ground noise so to speak. And the "planning" experts you mention are frequently the same people who have been told that multi use zoning is not feasible-----without realizing that it existed before---was just thrown out because it was not au courant. Or any other reasons. And so the development ends up someplace many miles from anywhere ----- hence the BANANA syndrom

[greyhounds]

schlimm

 Perhaps this is the sort of thing that occurred at Conrail that some folks would raise questions over.  Workers conceded on wage cuts for three years while bosses got pretty good raises:

http://www.nytimes.com/1985/02/15/business/conrail-unions-reach-wage-pact-washington-feb-14-ap-conrail-10-unions.html

Then read this link (sorry, but it is a bit smudged):

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1356&dat=19850812&id=8OsTAAAAIBAJ&sjid=WAYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4746,6141651

I really think you are misrepresenting what this says.

The way I read it, both management and labor gave up wages for three years from 1981 to 1984.  In 1984 the union pay scales were restored to normal "national" levels and management was also brought up to parity with other rail pay scales.

You're claiming the unions took reductions while management got increases.  That is not what the cited writing said.

[schlimm]

 I agree I didn't phrase that clearly.  The union wages were 12% below national level for three years; management salaries were correspondingly lowered, but they were still much higher than the salaries of the US VP or cabinet members.  Remember, at this point Conrail was federal government owned. In 1984, while the union wages came up to national level, there was no plan to compensate them for their sacrifice of past wages lost.  Management got increases of 12 - 22%.  In fairness, maybe the union workers were compensated later.  Don't know.

[Murphy Siding]

mudchicken

(4) Industry has major heartburn when they have to shoulder the cost of track for their exclusive use. Getting off the main track is an expensive proposition as is building runaround tracks and the like. (RWM, PaulNorth and I have all seen industry & developers come in with really poor ideas of what is required to adequately rail-serve a site, fed by so-called planning "professionals" with zero railroad expertise. Often, the railroad component is the first issue abandoned on a project.)

   The lumberyard I work for built a new yard this year.  The location was selected  to be rail served.  The spur cost somewhere in the million dollar range.  I can't tell you how many people asked why the railroad made us pay for it.

[schlimm]

Murphy Siding

The spur cost somewhere in the million dollar range.  I can't tell you how many people asked why the railroad made us pay for it.

 

I suppose the cynical answer is, "Because it can."

[schlimm]

Paul_D_North_Jr

I believe a big part of henry6's difficulty with ConRail's abandonments was that it didn't just walk away from some of those lines, and leave them in place for others to perhaps try to 'make a go' of them, even a net salvage value.  Instead, CR went further and totally removed the tracks and infrastructure, which practically precluded/ foreclosed any hope of future restoration of rail service - with a few exceptions

 

I find this of interest also.  Conrail was initially a quasi-government railroad, wasn't it,  or at least, heavily aided by the feds to prevent a total closing of all those bankrupt lines.  Presumably the hope would have been to keep much of the physical plant intact, or more than would have occurred if the bankruptcy process had played out.  Yet it seems that a number of potentially routes that would be useful in the future were torn up for scrap value.  It is that sort of action, short-term gain vs. long-term value (and in this case not part of the free market) that some of us call into question.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Consider that a fair number of the lines that were spun off as short lines didn't accomplish much beyond postponing the day of reckoning.  An example with which I'm familiar is the west end of the EL main into Chicago, which was spun off as Erie Western on April 1, 1976.  Erie Western folded after about two years and the line ran for about another year as Chicago & Indiana, at which point the line was abandoned and the track taken up.

[oltmannd]

greyhounds

schlimm

 Perhaps this is the sort of thing that occurred at Conrail that some folks would raise questions over.  Workers conceded on wage cuts for three years while bosses got pretty good raises:

http://www.nytimes.com/1985/02/15/business/conrail-unions-reach-wage-pact-washington-feb-14-ap-conrail-10-unions.html

Then read this link (sorry, but it is a bit smudged):

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1356&dat=19850812&id=8OsTAAAAIBAJ&sjid=WAYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4746,6141651

I really think you are misrepresenting what this says.

The way I read it, both management and labor gave up wages for three years from 1981 to 1984.  In 1984 the union pay scales were restored to normal "national" levels and management was also brought up to parity with other rail pay scales.

You're claiming the unions took reductions while management got increases.  That is not what the cited writing said.

Conrail management never really was on a par with the rest of the industry - particularly in the 80s.

[oltmannd]

Bucyrus

henry6

Look.  Somebody dropped the word greed here as to whether it was good or bad.  I used Conrail as an example of how itsr successful waccomplishment could be considered greed for the good from those who benefited while the areas which did not receive the benefit of Conrail , if effect lost service or got a lower level of service could consider the greed as detrimental. I DID NOT JUDGE: IT TOLD IT LIKE IT WAS, GAVE AN EQUAL AND BALANCED PORTAYAL OF WHAT HAPPENED WITHOUT JUDGEMENT OR COMMENT; IT SHOWED THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE RESULTS OF CONRAIL'S ACTIONS.  SEVERAL READ THEIR OWN OPINIONS INTO IT AND BLASTED ME FOR IT OR JUST WANT TO PICK AN ARGUEMENT FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUEMENT. UNFORTUNATELY TOO MANY OF THE READERS CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FACT AND OPINION BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN OPINIONS GETTING IN THE WAY.  If I am wrong here, then tell me so and I'll quit and end my subscriptions.

 

You are wrong because of your application of the term, greed to private business. 

And, his revisionist history tendencies toward Conrail.

[Murphy Siding]

schlimm

Yet it seems that a number of potentially routes that would be useful in the future were torn up for scrap value.  It is that sort of action, short-term gain vs. long-term value (and in this case not part of the free market) that some of us call into question.

   I'm not sure that the kind of crytal ball that Conrail had back then was as ever-powerfull as today's hi-tech models.  If someone had that ability back then to predict which lines would be needed in future, couldn't that use some of that clairvoyance to play the stock market and finance the whole thing as well?

    It doubt that it is either fair, or accurate, to second guess the decisions of the past, based on the 20-20 hindsight of the present.

    * I'll submit again, that this subject (Conrail / etc. ) could be it's own, interesting topic, in order to keep it seperate from this topic.  Anybody up to the challenge? *

[oltmannd]

Paul_D_North_Jr

I believe a big part of henry6's difficulty with ConRail's abandonments was that it didn't just walk away from some of those lines, and leave them in place for others to perhaps try to 'make a go' of them, even a net salvage value.  Instead, CR went further and totally removed the tracks and infrastructure, which practically precluded/ foreclosed any hope of future restoration of rail service - with a few exceptions, such as the NYS&W *(the New York portion), and the ex-EL WNY&PA* lines, etc.

Much of what Conrail tore up in the early 80s had been rehabbed in the late 70s. They reused the nearly new track material to keep the viable lines going. Conrail did not have to purchase any new rail until the 1990s because of this and was able to use the freed up capital to do other efficiency improvements like mainline fueling in Harrisburg and CTC (TCS to Conrail) on the PRR and cab signals on the B&A.

[schlimm]

Murphy Siding

It doubt that it is either fair, or accurate, to second guess the decisions of the past, based on the 20-20 hindsight of the present.

 

Ah yes, but of course accurate forecasting is one of the most important attributes of a really first-rank business or executive.  As was once said, "It's the vision thing."