daveklepper Another aspect of John Kneiling's stubburness, or rather "Hutzpah" really an untranslatable word, can be gleaned by reading a post on my "Don't accept NO" thread on the CLASSIC TRAINS forum.
http://cs.trains.com/ctr/f/3/t/228595.aspx?sort=ASC&pi386=2
- Paul North.
Another aspect of John Kneiling's stubburness, or rather "Hutzpah" really an untranslatable word, can be gleaned by reading a post on my "Don't accept NO" thread on the CLASSIC TRAINS forum.
Some cost-cutting technology did arrive, and espcially applicable to unit-trains: Grain hoppers replacing boxcars, and double stacks.
TRAINS April 1977 $1.25
The Professional Iconoclast
John G Kneiling, P.E., Consulting Engineer
So Export the Oil
In February 1969 in this column I reported on the then new Alaska oil play. I noted that the oil should go to the midcontinent market via Chicago-area refineries and that there already was a railroad going far north. My (unsought) advice to the railroad industry was to get the business and make a buck. Time marched on. “Studies” were made. I forecast that the main attraction of the (later adopted) Valdez route was its convenience in exporting to Japan. Few listened. Fewer acted.
One “study” started assuming that the railroad represents the last choice. Another assumed there is no room for rail technology improvement, and another that detailed specifications used in Indiana must be used intact on the northern tundra. The studies – starting with stacked if not short decks – still “found” that rail carriage could be a standoff with a new pipeline. What if they had started with more progressive assumptions about railroads?
Oil men told me they would not consider a railroad unless they could be shown reliability. Then the Canadian government – which owns part of the rail route – began acting like a banana republic with snowplows.
The idea of a tanker route to the U.S. mainland was never very robust. No tanker man would run the big boats to the fog-bound Puget Sound entrance voluntarily. The route to California and east by land is circuitous, and the California government is demanding tribute for access to the rest of the country. In addition, any tanker that fits the Panama Canal can’t make money. (Incidentally, that’s part of the “Panama giveaway.” The canal is obsolete, but it’s not in the Washington politicos to do anything either honestly or to the profit of their employers, much less both.)
So now comes a “new” proposal to sell Alaska oil – via Valdez – in Japan. The idea has merit. It escapes price rigging on domestic oil and ducks the need to use high-priced U.S. boats, and it bypasses the no-longer-trusted Canadian scene and the railroads that refused to perform. Remember, oil landed in California is almost as far from market as it was when it started out.
Of course the railroad trade did not miss altogether. Now – years later – the Southern Pacific advertises that it can haul oil from California, where pipes are already in the ground. And Canadian National is heard to say that a railroad is “feasible.”
Oil men and Government types sugar-coat the export bit with a line about “trading” for Mideastern oil that might otherwise go to Japan.
That’s a lot of that stuff.
The fact is that Mideastern oil is not company-owned or allocated or in an equity deal as are steel-companies’ ore mines. It’s owned – after theft, but effectively since there is no cop – by the Ay-rabs. (Not Arabs, Ay-rabs. Ay-rabs are all the towel-wearing types; Arabs are nationals of Saudi Arabia.) They sell it where they sell it, and if U.S. producers sell U.S. oil in Japan, U.S. users must import at going prices.
If push comes to shove, it will not be practical to divert Alaska boats to the U.S. mainland. The tanker terminals will not be in place, the bird-watchers will block their building, and the boats will be illegal for this trade.
The Alaska producers have little choice. The Alaska legislature is playing OPEC. They’ve been back for “one last bite” twice now, and who knows how many more they’ll take – like the northern plains states with their coal “severance tax,” and Canadian federal and provincial governments with their taxes on increments that added up to more than 100 per cent.
So producers have to sell abroad to placate the Alaska government since they would not be allowed such prices in the domestic market – except on imports.
From the railroad-industry (and U.S. public interest) viewpoint, the best scheme still is to get together with CN, to build from the end of steel to the North Slope, and then to use a properly planned integral-train system to reach the Chicago area via a single suburban-area station and the existing pipeline network.
Neither the railroad industry nor the U.S. public interest is apt to prevail, though. The railroad trade seems incapable of even stating its view, much less getting that view seriously considered. Too many guys are still saying, “How do we route the pipe?” The U.S. public interest never had any lobbyists, so why start now? For one thing, too many eco-freaks have ranged themselves against the public interest. For another, too many demagogues have chosen to take cheap shots at oil companies, and who cares if the public interest gets nicked? Better to harass an oil company than to protect any part of the interest of an ungrateful, uninformed, inarticulate public that did not vote “right” anyway – and more fun too. Maybe some oil company refused to pay off.
Given that the Alaska situation probably will not be resolved in any manner we would consider rational, what is next best? Increasing dependence on imports will go on increasing, and it follows that inland markets will be served overland from the seacoast.
Given that railroads are no longer “real” to oil men (and are not apt to make themselves real), the new gateways likely will be on the Gulf Coast whence barges can run inland without right-of-way hassles from bird watchers.
For the volumes involved, railroads could do better than the barges (or new pipelines) but are not likely to do so anytime soon. Part of the reason for this column is that some railroader may be motivated to overturn this forecast.
Consider some other interior markets. Recall that the late lamented and forgotten gas/heating-oil shortages first turned up in places such as Denver. What happened was that wholesalers on the seacoast told the remote inland customers that it was too much trouble to lay on the transport when there was a nearby market to buy all the oil they had available to sell. Distributors in Denver, Sudbury, Butte and other unlikely places out in the boondocks were told. “Cash and carry” – and we do mean come and get it, when we have it left over from our regular customers. The situation will come to that again.
Since railroads can’t seem to compete with barge lines (no good reason; they just can’t), they should be able to organize transport to where the rivers don’t go – if they could and/or would compete with owner-operator truckers.
That they should be able to do. An owner-operator usually has to sell through ICC-franchised “carriers” who add a quarter to a third. Isn’t that enough “rate shelter” or “umbrella” – or is it? The owner-operators prosper and the railroads do not.
It’s still a fact that oil and oil products represent one of the biggest (if not the biggest) volume movements in North America. Aren’t railroads supposed to be all about big volumes and an alleged ability to go everywhere in the land and to spread the fixed or common costs over various kinds of traffic which specialized carriers cannot do?
There is a huge volume out there. The biggest pieces have been lost, but let’s get some of the rest.
Paul_D_North_Jr dakotafred John A. Swearingen [snipped - PDN. ] . . . Towards the end many letters critical of Kneiling came from other members of TRAINS' staff themselves, who likened paying for Kneiling's column to "a welfare check from Morgan". . . . [snipped - PDN.] . . . Your second is simply made-up "history," assuming you're talking about staffers whose letters appeared in the magazine. (And what other kind of letter from down the hall would make any sense?) I was a reader back then, and recall none. Names, please. I'd be particularly interested in the identity of the bold staffer who complained of "a welfare check from Morgan." Concur - I likewise recall none. Can you provide any names, dates/ issue nos., and page nos. to support your assertion ? John's writing sometimes left something to be desired, but I suspect sometimes he didn't mind if the reader had to work a little bit to get his points. His graphs in the "Coal - Going, Going, Gone" article were particularly challenging for me.
dakotafred John A. Swearingen [snipped - PDN. ] . . . Towards the end many letters critical of Kneiling came from other members of TRAINS' staff themselves, who likened paying for Kneiling's column to "a welfare check from Morgan". . . . [snipped - PDN.] . . . Your second is simply made-up "history," assuming you're talking about staffers whose letters appeared in the magazine. (And what other kind of letter from down the hall would make any sense?) I was a reader back then, and recall none. Names, please. I'd be particularly interested in the identity of the bold staffer who complained of "a welfare check from Morgan."
John A. Swearingen [snipped - PDN. ] . . . Towards the end many letters critical of Kneiling came from other members of TRAINS' staff themselves, who likened paying for Kneiling's column to "a welfare check from Morgan". . . .
John's writing sometimes left something to be desired, but I suspect sometimes he didn't mind if the reader had to work a little bit to get his points. His graphs in the "Coal - Going, Going, Gone" article were particularly challenging for me.
Excerpt from Modern Railroads (1984)
Why We Need Those Integral Trains by Tom Shedd
It was a dramatic and, we hope, an historic happening — the AAR-sponsored meeting in Chicago on April 3. A panel of top railroaders presented the concept of the "high productivity integral train" and asked suppliers to come forth with proposals for making the concept a reality by 1985.
Seated up front in the packed meeting room was that acerbic gadfly, consultant John Kneiling. Back in 1961 — 23 years ago — Kneiling first proposed an integral train for bulk commodities (MR, August 1961, p. 41).
(An integral train, for those who have entered the railroad industry since 1961, is a train that is "designed as a system and operated as an entity," to quote AAR. Depending on the design, the motive power might be a permanent part of the train, which might operate in either direction without turning. Since it would very likely shuttle back and forth on a single "megarailroad" and would stay out of hump yards it would not have to meet interchange standards and could be built with tremendous weight savings.)
True to form, Kneiling had a complaint about this new integral train program. "Your time frame is too short," he opined. To which one of the panelists observed that "this must be the first time the industry has ever moved too fast for you, John!"
That bit of levity aside, the prospects for developing actual, operating integral trains look pretty good this time around. One reason is that with more and more long-haul traffic moving over single-rail systems or in run-through corridors, it is now feasible to build equipment that doesn't have to meet AAR interchange rules. And accelerating new technology, new materials, and new design techniques make it possible to build such equipment with big savings in weight and cost. The AAR project aims at a 50 percent reduction in road movement costs for intermodal and 35 percent for bulk-commodity traffic. Moreover, savings of that magnitude are necessary not just to improve railroad profits but also for survival.
As Peter Detmold, chairman of the railway advisory committee of Canada, pointed out at the AAR meeting, competitors are already putting severe pressure on railroad rates; and the future holds even greater pressures. "If the long 'double bottom’ highway trains currently under study… are allowed on the highways, trucking costs will drop by as much as much as 40 percent. It is imperative that the next generation of rail intermodal equipment be competitive against this equipment, and we feel this is entirely possible."
The AAR wants proposals for both intermodal and bulk commodity integral trains. But if the railroads expect to sit back and be deluged with proposals from fired-up suppliers, we think they're going to be disappointed.
After three years of no orders, a lot of suppliers have simply run out of money. And even those that still have some left aren't likely to move ahead without a solid commitment and probably up-front development funding by the customers. We would hope that the railroads, which have been doing relatively well financially since 1980, will take the lead and invest funds to help supplier consortia get this program moving. We believe with AAR's Bill Harris that there isn't much time left to get integral trains rolling. If we don't quickly achieve those big increases in productivity, the growing efficiency of competitors will devastate the railroads.
daveklepper schlimm Lake-Wells on the CTA L is still used, AFAIK. Are there tracks from north to west? The other three corners, double track, exist, but the northwest corener is missing if my memory is correct. Your memory is better than mine. I stand corrected. The NW corner is missing. Not sure if it ever existed, since no regular routes would have used it.
schlimm Lake-Wells on the CTA L is still used, AFAIK. Are there tracks from north to west? The other three corners, double track, exist, but the northwest corener is missing if my memory is correct.
Lake-Wells on the CTA L is still used, AFAIK.
Are there tracks from north to west? The other three corners, double track, exist, but the northwest corener is missing if my memory is correct.
Your memory is better than mine. I stand corrected. The NW corner is missing. Not sure if it ever existed, since no regular routes would have used it.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm dakotafred Your first is a particularly silly assertion, easily refuted by the column sample supplied by wanswheel above. The sample you refer to from wanswheel was from 1945 and thus not from JGK's column. You and I have no knowledge of the drafts he turned in to Kalmbach for editing. Perhaps they required heavy rewrites, perhaps not. It would be helpful if someone could post a representative column, as I doubt if any of us can recall accurately his finished product.
dakotafred Your first is a particularly silly assertion, easily refuted by the column sample supplied by wanswheel above.
Your first is a particularly silly assertion, easily refuted by the column sample supplied by wanswheel above.
The sample you refer to from wanswheel was from 1945 and thus not from JGK's column. You and I have no knowledge of the drafts he turned in to Kalmbach for editing. Perhaps they required heavy rewrites, perhaps not. It would be helpful if someone could post a representative column, as I doubt if any of us can recall accurately his finished product.
John A. Swearingen As I recall Kneiling the most negative responses were provoked by the fact that his columns were inarticulately written.... practically unintelligible babble ... Towards the end many letters critical of Kneiling came from other members of TRAINS' staff themselves, who likened paying for Kneiling's column to "a welfare check from Morgan". It was then clear to readership, much to their relief, that Kneiling wound not survive in TRAINS after Morgan departed. .....And there wasn't any outcry to bring him back after he disappeared from the magazine.
As I recall Kneiling the most negative responses were provoked by the fact that his columns were inarticulately written.... practically unintelligible babble ...
Towards the end many letters critical of Kneiling came from other members of TRAINS' staff themselves, who likened paying for Kneiling's column to "a welfare check from Morgan". It was then clear to readership, much to their relief, that Kneiling wound not survive in TRAINS after Morgan departed. .....And there wasn't any outcry to bring him back after he disappeared from the magazine.
selector If there was a contract that was being unilaterally rescinded by management, Ed, then I withdraw my comment. An agreement should be honoured by both parties. -Crandell
If there was a contract that was being unilaterally rescinded by management, Ed, then I withdraw my comment. An agreement should be honoured by both parties.
-Crandell
If you want to review the agreement, it is readily available hanging on a roll in each stall for your convenience.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
As I recall Kneiling the most negative responses were provoked by the fact that his columns were inarticulately written.... practically unintelligible babble. What did come through clearly was his libelous contempt for Amtrak labor which elicited some passionate, articulate letters of defense from Amtrak President W. Claytor Jr., whch once characterized Kneiling's latest anti-labor diatribe as "a new low even for him (Kneiling)". Towards the end many letters critical of Kneiling came from other members of TRAINS' staff themselves, who likened paying for Kneiling's column to "a welfare check from Morgan". It was then clear to readership, much to their relief, that Kneiling wound not survive in TRAINS after Morgan departed. .....And there wasn't any outcry to bring him back after he disappeared from the magazine.
~ John A. Swearingen
There is still in-use a grand union, I think, in Toronto. Only one left in North America.
Richmond and Victoria Avenues?
Earlier on the thread I posted [John] Gilbert Kneiling's high school yearbook photo. The caption reads "Stamp Club; Mineral Club founder and first president; B-line debate letter; outside employment."
http://www.mocavo.com/ajax/datasets/view/601652/36
Stadium High School was originally built to be a Northern Pacific hotel. It's right above the tracks. Kneiling and his classmates probably heard every whistle every school day for 4 years.
http://search.tacomapubliclibrary.org/images/dt6n.asp?un=46&pg=3&krequest=stadium+high+school&stemming=On&phonic=&fuzzy=&maxfiles=5000
http://search.tacomapubliclibrary.org/images/dt6n.asp?un=16&pg=1&krequest=stadium+high+school&stemming=On&phonic=&fuzzy=&maxfiles=5000
http://search.tacomapubliclibrary.org/images/dt6n.asp?un=92&pg=5&krequest=stadium+high+school&stemming=On&phonic=&fuzzy=&maxfiles=5000
Excerpt, text only, from ERA Headlights, December 1945
Track Map Dept. by John Kneiling
An oddity that has interested track layout fans for years has been the collection of special work known as a "grand union" (see illustration opposite) an ordinary two track right angle intersection with all of the connections in place. Such installations are relatively rare, for reasons that have been pointed out in this column before – namely that transit companies do not install track just for its geometric symmetry, or so that railfans may photograph it, but as a roadway on which to run their cars. And each installation must justify itself for this purpose. It will be obvious that for a "grand union" to be justified it must be used, or at least most of it must be used, most of the time and there must be a definite purpose for each of the eight connecting curves. It will be readily seen that service conditions or configurations of routes that require such trackwork are relatively few.
This writer has personal knowledge of only a relatively few of such installations. They include: five in Chicago, on Franklin at Adams, Madison and Randolph and on LaSalle at Washington and Randolph (it is not known whether these are all still in place now or not). Bethlehem Pa. still has one, at Broad and New Sts., though one of the 4 branches no longer goes anywhere. There is one in Winnipeg, and in years past there were several others. The one still in use is at the intersection of Broadway and Osborne. Fort William, Ont. has one on its main street though here as in Bethlehem one of the lines no longer goes anywhere. Lastly, there is one in Roanoke, whose picture is shown.
Perhaps our readers have seen other such installations. We do not mean places in which five or six or seven of the curves are present or in which one or more of the thru tracks are missing. Such are quite numerous; but the full collection is rare.
Along the same line it is well to point out a similar installation in Lancaster, Pa., where there are two intersecting single track lines, with all four curves — but no through tracks.
Within the general subject of track maps, one of the most interesting and impressive subdivisions is that of terminal layouts and depots. It is in the terminals and depots that we find the most unusual combinations. Types range from the simple crossover which marks the end of the line to the interlacing loops occupying the four quadrants of the Public Square in Cleveland. Some are interlocked, with varying degrees of provision for simultaneous movements, some automatic interlockings, such as the most recently installed terminal on the New York City Transit System, or the terminal of the Philadelphia Suburban Transportation Co., Upper Darby, Pa.
Some of the most startling collections of special work result from the apparently haphazard growth of a barn or Junction, or "depot” as they are called in some cities. As more facilities are needed, a new loop is added, and nothing is taken out. Examples are to be found in Brooklyn, Boston, or others of the older cities. In a future issue we hope to be able to publish a collection of them. Use of photo-offset, to begin next month will assist in this intent.
It is of interest to note that the PST terminal referred to above is a fully automatic installation (provided with manual operation to use when desired) that replaced an eight-track stub terminal served by a 79-lever electric-pneumatic interlocking machine. The old terminal was one of the largest of electric railway plants. The new plant provides for selection of routes by a device that works like a traffic light. A car approaches a switch, the signal alternates between green and yellow, although the switch points do not move. The car waits until the signal displays the color assigned to the route desired (both are “clear” aspects) and proceeds. The switch points then move to the position corresponding to the indication displayed at the time the trolley pole passes the contactor and remain so until car is off the circuit, when the alternate green and yellow routine is resumed until the next car arrives.
A few comments about the Cleveland terminal referred to above are also in order. The Public Square, on one corner of which is the Cleveland Union Terminal housing the New York Central, the Nickel Plate as well as the Shaker Heights Rapid Transit, is an open space, parked, about two blocks square, with the city's main streets intersecting in its center. Each of the four resulting squares has its own set of trolley loops, serving lines radiating out to the outer parts of the city. One of the approaches, West Superior Street has four tracks on it, alternating in direction from the Square to the river, making it one of three four track streets in the country, These four become three for a block and then two.
Most impressive to a visitor to the city is the corner in front of the Union Terminal, where there are two concentric loops, clockwise, both of them, where motor traffic does not have a chance. The volume of business handled, as might be suspected, is enormous.
Unique, however, among electric line terminals, is the Union Loop Elevated Railway of Chicago. This company was organized to build a common terminal for the independent els in Chicago, and owned the trackage now comprising the "Loop" from which the business section of the city got its name. The stub terminals near the loop are relics of the days before the loop. Its lines were the most heavily used railroad tracks in the country until the building of the subway, and at Lake and Wells where there are two right turning movements, one left turn and two crossing movements (perpendicular to each other) with headways described by one fan as “about six feet” is the place where the loop’s rails never cool. As noted above, we plan to publish a collection of terminal layouts soon, and this collection will be improved considerably if fans collect us the data on some more.
If memory serves me, (and it might not!) he was making reference to the Penn Central merger, which resulted in an excess of some employees in some classes.
The unions’ position was that these folks were hired in good faith, and had done nothing to justify being fired, other than having become excess employees.
Most Class 1 roads in dealing with the locals unions have some form of furlough and flowback protection included in the local contract…on my carrier, if you are furloughed from the PTRA, you can go to the UP and exercise your seniority, fitting into their roster based on your seniority date.
The flip side is if the PTRA recalls you, you have to come back to the PTRA, even if it means a cut in pay, or lose your seniority there, which affects your seniority on the UP.
The issue then was there was no such clause in the national agreement, and the union wanted the carrier to either find something for the “excess employees” to do at their same rate of pay, or be bought out entirely.
This is one of the major reasons carriers always seem to be understaffed in T&E…business picks up and they run the current employees as hard as they can, business drops of and they furlough the excess, if there are any.
Carriers hire up to what they project is the bare minimum needed to run the railroad.
And, that’s one of the major reason the carriers were so supportive of the 30/60 retirement law…reach 60 with 30 years of service and you can retire with the same benefits as if you waited till you were 65….it thinned the ranks of older employees who were working under a more lucrative contract with a lot of arbitraries, or perks, which were done away with for anyone hired after 1985.
As odd as it seems, a T&E employee hired before 1985, if he plays his seniority right, can earn almost twice what a post 85 employee earns doing the exact same job.
Regardless, unions don’t hire anyone for the railroad, although they do hire for their own internal union positions.
That’s said, at the time Kneiling is writing about, the labor unions did have some ability to influence hiring though nepotism, cronyism and internal political pressure, but nowhere near as much as is portrayed in films and popular entertainment.
They couldn’t force railroads to create certain or specific jobs for someone, but they could and did influence who was hired for the available jobs.
23 17 46 11
The union didn’t hire those 600, the railroad did, they were car men, and T&E employees hired up before business went bad.
The railroad had determined it was 600 men top heavy and wanted to fire them, the union told them that “you hired them you find them something to do or buy out their contract” which the railroad refused to do.
SP bought out its head end brakemen a few years before the SP/UP merger, paid each of them what that person would have earned based on the number of years left before they could retire.
Kneiling was not above being misleading when trying to make a point.
I don’t know of any union on any railroad that does or ever has done the hiring for the railroad.
We 600 want to be paid for doing nothing for the rest of our lives. Oh, and don't forget the overtime...for doing nothing. No productivity. No good. Nada.
Toodles!!
schlimm I was trying to be less inflammatory. The correct term in re JGK was anti-unionized labor.
I was trying to be less inflammatory. The correct term in re JGK was anti-unionized labor.
Or, perhaps, to be fair to Mr. Kneiling, "anti-featherbedding, 'I'm on attrition and I want extra if I do any work' organized labor".
Schlimm, I don't think it's "anti-labor" when you jump on people for not doing their jobs. As I recall, rail management took its share of lumps from Kneiling for the same deficiency.
I would call him an equal-opportunity scold. And, my, he sure did do it with style!
Did you just now discover 40 years after the fact that JGK was very anti-labor and right wing in his views?
Excerpt from The Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the 93rd Congress
Hon. Philip M. Crane of Illinois in the House of Representatives - Wednesday, May 2, 1973
Mr. Crane: Mr. Speaker, the May issue of Trains magazine carries an editorial piece by a professional engineer, John G. Kneiling, entitled “Credibility Runs Out.”
This article is perhaps the most striking—no pun intended—commentary on current problems in the transportation industry I have ever seen in print. Mr. Kneiling’s commentary gets to the heart of the problem which everybody is afraid to discuss, namely, organized labor. We can pour billions of devalued Federal dollars into the Nation's transportation systems and we can purchase rail rights-of-way and we can form new re-organized corporations out of the ashes of the old bankrupt corporations, but we will never come to grips with what ails our transportation industry until we begin to look at the questions of organized labor, productivity, wages, and others.
Because Mr. Kneiling's commentary provides much needed insight into this current dilemma, I included it in the Record at this point:
CREDIBILITY RUNS OUT (By John G. Kneiling)
As this column is written in February, some 1972 end-of-year events can be viewed with detachment. Most were simply current episodes in long-running cliff-hangers, but so many of these events occurred so close together that the scene has become overpowering.
The Long Island Rail Road was on strike for nearly two months — this time the strikers were the shopmen. Commuters recall them as the group who couldn't maintain new cars. The railroad contracted with the builder for work that LIRR men couldn’t do. Then these men struck – the work was “theirs” even if they could not do it.
The beef this time was that train jockeys got big raises, allegedly (opinions differ) for less featherbedding. Nonoperating forces wanted the same arrangement, and didn't want to talk about productivity. Eventually the union admitted to 600 excess employees, but would allow their elimination only on two conditions: wage increases twice the amount of the saving; and full pay and overtime (!) for the 600 excess employees for the rest of their lives.
Highway jams did not materialize as a result of the strike — perhaps few commuters missed the LIRR this time. Reportedly, 20 to 30 per cent (depending on whom you believe) of the riders did not return to the trains – even before the inevitable fare increase came.
The State of New Jersey finally told the Central of New Jersey to drop its commuters. The subsidy demanded was $80 per month per commuter — plus the fares. No one claimed the account was padded. Eight thousand riders on the main line and 7000 on the New York & Long Branch will "find other means." The 7000 on the Long Branch will ride the Penn Central — while PC lasts.
I recall when trains ran like trolley cars on the Long Branch—and with cafe cars and bar cars and commuters' clubs. The trains ran from Penn Station, Exchange Place, and the CNJ ferry. Now commuters use the Garden State Parkway—in their autos. The highway is not subsidized and it makes a profit; New Jersey Governor William T. Cahill commented publicly on spending the profit in his January message to the Legislature.
Commuters who started driving gave up the club cars to push a piece of iron over the road—and paid tolls too. Besides, a commuter using a car he would not otherwise need (the second car, for instance) must assign to it the first $250 earnings each month—and drive it too. This choice seldom (despite Detroit myths) is made voluntarily; it results from perceived necessity.
Then the subway shops appeared in the news again. Two inspectors, fed up with goof-offs, presented on TV a film they had made at a subway barn. The municipal management filed charges against them for making the film. Nothing was said about the goof-offs. Trains don't work or they break down in service. Doors don't work. Lights don't work. These failures mean that repairmen did not do their jobs. The two inspectors were very, very credible. (Riders recall the last time shopmen showed up on the TV screen. During a strike a union boss appeared on TV and tore up an injunction, saying the judge should drop dead.) Authority hearings were going nowhere, so a mayor's committee held a public session to hear the two inspectors. The meeting was invaded and disrupted by a union delegation. Union civil-service police did not maintain order. That very day an empty parked train rolled into a standing train. Twelve hours later torch men still were cutting apart the wreckage, and the district's State Assemblyman who was inquiring on behalf of his constituents was brushed off.
A driver was too lazy or too stupid to apply brakes; or a mechanic did not do his work, so the brakes did not do theirs. Either theory is believable. Riders recall when the Transit Authority stopped the "key by" system after some accidents. Eliminating the system admitted that drivers can't be trusted with judgment, and that the line must be run as if it were completely automated.
Two major Connecticut Valley bus lines struck last fall, and few cared if they ever came back. (The region is settled at a sparse 1000-per-square-mile population with small cities and no big center.) Both once were trolley lines, and one was railroad owned. Areas dense enough to support bus lines were taken over by people who don't work. People who do work scattered to areas which require every adult to have a car. Industry started to leave — often for lack of help. Factory wages don't support "scatteration," and convenient living areas became uninhabitable for anyone who cares how he lives. The lines were down to one round trip each weekday for every 40 residents. The region became a mini-Los Angeles where common carriage is just a phrase. One line surrendered its franchise when labor demanded security and wage raises. The proposal now has been made that the State run empty buses so that drivers can be hired.
A major airline (American) canceled hundreds of flights last December when pilots ran out of hours. Reportedly plane drivers put in 80 hours a month, and when driver time runs out, the customers are not given consideration. A patron does not like being stranded because some plane jockey has completed his half-time for more income than most riders get for a full-time job.
Commuters were threatened by a strike on PATH — the Port Authority train service which runs to New Jersey bus and rail connections from Manhattan. PATH has the usual problems of poor service and overmanning, and it's losing customers as people find that the connections are useless.
Penn Central’s long-overdue cutting of crews produced another strike threat until the Government ordered the PC to give the union all it asked. Apparently brakemen can't get jobs even in labor-short New York, so they need protection. That’s believable — they have no work experience.
PC's one-day strike further harassed the riders — then Congress again awarded the union all it demanded. You know at whose ultimate expense.
This, incidentally, is how CNJ got into trouble. It kept acquiring help to do less work until the working taxpayers cut them off. A passenger-train employee "bumps" when he should get fired; he loses the customers and someone else gets canned.
Credibility problems are not unique to the big city or to the railroads or to passenger carriers. For instance, a big freight shipper is conducting accident studies to determine which rail route is apt to get his cargo there at all.
I commented in a service conference that a ship line noted in the trade press for a shoestring operation with cheap boats achieves 350 miles a day — nautical miles, at that — including port time. This is seven times the performance of the U.S. rail car. The fastest freighters so far (the SL-7's) make only 40 mph top. A railroader noted that the rail industry as a whole has fallen apart to the point where few trains can be sure of 40 mph even when they run.
Back to commuters. You must understand the customers if you're going to be interested in carrying them. You need not agree with them or approve of them or like them or even care what happens to them, but in any business you must understand what makes the customer tick.
Once it was axiomatic that rails were the way to carry a lot of people or a lot of goods easily, cheaply, with minimum space demands and minimum fuss. That axiom no longer is readily accepted. The practicality of running a railroad at all is being doubted. The practicality of running any labor-intensive common carrier is being doubted by commuters and shippers.
We may be past the point of no return. The day may be past when users of any facility can rely on anything that depends on organized, low-grade labor.
Excerpt from The Professional Engineer magazine (1952)
Before turning you over to our next author, John G. Kneiling, P.E., of Staten Island, N.Y., we would like to preface his piece with this information: According to legal advice, the New York registration law provision mentioned by Reader Kneiling provides that no corporation formed after 1951 may use the word “engineers” or “engineering” or a derivative of such terms unless composed exclusively of professional engineers. Labor unions generally are not incorporated and the provision cited would therefore not be applicable. Such a provision does not appear in the majority of state registration laws. - PP
I have been reading the pieces in “Professional Postscripts” and I feel that there is one situation of national interest with which this column should deal.
Not long ago I attended a meeting of a neighboring county chapter of my state society at which the subject of engineer unions was discussed by a panel of spokesmen for some of them. When my chance to question the speakers came, I quoted the law of this state — which I assume resembles the law of other states — which says that it is unlawful for any persons to constitute a voluntary organization whose name includes the word “Engineer” or derivative thereof unless all its members are duly licensed, all subject to the “grandfather” provisions. It is under these “grandfather” provisions that the “founder” societies do business. But the “engineer unions” do not seem even to have the right to existence under this law. I asked by what right they did exist, after quoting the law. I was told by a spokesman for one of them that the “engineer unions” do business under Congressional authority, traceable to the interstate commerce provisions of the Constitution and that, therefore, they could ignore State laws.
I subsequently discussed this matter, as well as other usurpations of the title “Engineer” with my colleagues in my own and neighboring counties and in nearby New Jersey.
The conclusion appears to be that: 1) Most engineers do not know that they are protected by law in the use of their professional title, 2) the men I talked to, for the most part, agree that “engineer unions” can defy State laws with impunity, 3) if I insist on “throwing the law book” at persons illegally using the title “engineer,” I will only “stir up trouble,” make enemies of many people, bring ridicule upon the profession and otherwise do disservice to the profession, and 4) the State is not particularly interested anyway in enforcing the law until and unless the State Society provides the initiative. May I suggest, therefore, that the NSPE promote and continually press a program consisting of the following activities:
1—Educate engineers generally concerning their rights in the several states to protection in the use of the title “engineer.” 2—Encourage, repeatedly and continuously, the prosecution of “clean-up” programs aimed at eliminating the illegal use of the professional title. When the public sees a plumber’s truck labeled “Joe Doakes Engineering Co.” or “John Smith Engineering Co., Television repairs,” then our profession cannot command much respect. 3—Closely police trade papers for violations. For example, an electrical contractor of my acquaintance received a circular from a washing machine distributor recommending that any washing machine servicemen whom he might employ be designated "Service Engineers." If such violators received a letter and then a summons, we would make progress even at the temporary expense of “harmony.” 4—Find, warn and if necessary prosecute persons in corporate employ who use titles incorporating the word “engineer” in the absence of licenses. Such violations include “Sales Engineers,” many grades of “Chief Engineer,” etc., whose names appear on stationery and elsewhere with improper titles. I have little hope for local initiative in this matter without a lot of encouragement from the NSPE. But the only way we can gain the respect that other professions have attained is by adopting a positive attitude in this matter. And I fear we will gain little by persuasion. We should start with persuasion in each case but should be prepared to see the law enforced with the same vigor that our colleagues in other professions would employ.
I'm not done yet with JGK. This thread may have been the impetus needed to get moving on a long-contemplated project: copy and compile an index of all of his Trains columns to facilitate finding a particular subject (the "Magazine Index" only does that for 'feature' articles).
The gent who sailed around the world solo was Sir Francis Chichester. And speaking from my own experience, rotating shifts (especially with 16 hours off in between, rather than 24) are a lot rougher than steady overnights. But thanks to all who remembered JGK and DPM; judging by the growth of references on Google, they made a lot more (and bigger) waves than anyone expected "way back when".
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.