CSSHEGEWISCH Ridiculous hours and demands on the lower levels of management is not exclusive to railroads.
Ridiculous hours and demands on the lower levels of management is not exclusive to railroads.
Never said it was exclusive. But it's not a great way to attract real talent. (but we are drifting way off topic).
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
dakotafredTo what extent are operating people open to changes like that, some of which would mean more time at home but also less money?
It's rare you'll ever hear someone complain about NOT going to a hotel.
I was referring to management. As long as they run those guys ragged, they will have trouble keeping talent. He said when he first hired out a few years ago (out of college) he was making more than his friends. Now, a couple years later, they all got promoted at their companies and were making more than him. And they had regular hours / days off, and didn't have to worry about running back to the office because some train stubbed its toe.
I know some of the old head managers spent 25 hours of the day, and 8 days of the week running the show. But I don't think the current generation is going to put up with that.
all just my personal opinion. I may be wrong. I'm just a dumb switchmonkey, after all.
If I understand zug correctly, railroads could help themselves by helping the help to a better lifestyle.
Sounds sensible to me -- altho there are other occupations that make what to me would be unattractive demands in exchange for their paychecks.
Take doctors. Lotta money and prestige, right? Recently, the doctor I go to for my checkups, probably 60 years old, said he was semi-retiring, which meant he wouldn't have to take his turn being on call -- with that old cell phone in his pocket -- after 40 years. To say he was looking forward to that is an understatement.
My question: On the rails, there have been limited experiments with getting road people home at night. (The only one I remember for sure is that on the I.C., where crews switched to opposing trains halfway through their run.) To what extent are operating people open to changes like that, some of which would mean more time at home but also less money?
Ulrich One can get them, but as always, money talks.
One can get them, but as always, money talks.
More than money. Just having some semblance of a life.
OvermodOddly enough, it's been about 40 years, and we're just now coming to where generators might be built... and I'm highly thankful for having also studied economics and business, in no small part based on that advice.
We have a manager that studied economics. Well, had. He is leaving the railroad to pursue a more "regular" (you know.. weekends off, no cell phone stuck to his ear all day) job back at his home. Can't blame him... but it's a shame we can't get guys with that kind of background to stick around.
He..Knieling, was right for his time. MBA's and Marketing concepts were what were taking hold in this and other industries, investments and return on investments with ways to save money were the wave of the then future. Innovation, logistics, and mechanics had to fall into those categories and not from imagination for improving the future. Hopefully Overmod is right, that 40 years beyond Knieling we've moved out of the academic theories and bottom line investing phase and come back to the application and extension of sound railroading. Maybe we had to have the past 40 years in order to understand what really has to be done to be competitive and efficient. Nevertheless, no more guessing, time for applying.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Paul_D_North_JrWhile I was taking McLean's Dynamics class, I found that he knew of John Kneiling, and so prof. McLean wrote him a note about my interest in railroading. John wrote back and said essentially: "Tell him [Paul] to study economcs, not dynamics." ! (proving once again that "no good deed goes unpunished"). We had a good chuckle at that - at the time I was taking the 1st of what would turn out to be 3 economics courses, and there were no more dynamics courses to be taken anyway.
Don't laugh -- that wasn't a kissoff. I had the same kind of answer from Mel Gottlieb when I was first doing physics. He asked what my interest was (at the time, it was what PPL was pursuing: fusion generation of electricity). This was in the Ford administration, and Mel said in some horror 'for heaven's sake, don't study physics; it'll take you 7 or so years just to come up to speed; there's no assurance there will be financing by then; and on top of it there's no guarantee fusion generation will be practical. Learn economics and finance, and get into a position where in 40 years you can get the generators built if they're practical.'
Oddly enough, it's been about 40 years, and we're just now coming to where generators might be built... and I'm highly thankful for having also studied economics and business, in no small part based on that advice.
Yep - I knew about that one, but few others might have.
See also U.S. Patent 3,269,332 for "Railroad car and drop-floor arrangement therefor" to John G. Kneiling, Aug. 30, 1966. Apparently it was 'split off' from 3,199,463.
http://www.google.com/patents/US3269332
Thanks for reminding us of these, Mike.
- Paul North.
Yet the "M.E." after his name in many of his columns and articles usually denotes "Mechanical Engineer", and he sure analyzed and wrote like one. However, there's a substantial overlap between the two disciplines - mainly in subjects such as fluid mechanics, structures, materials science, dynamics of motion, etc., especially in the pre-electronic age, so it's possible he had both degrees. In fact, the chairman of our Civil Engineering Dept. at Lafayette College when I was there was Dr. B. Vincent Viscomi, whose degrees and Ph.D. were in Mechanical Engineering (mainly nuclear engineering), which nevertheless enabled him to teach many of our structural and advanced (Theory of Elasticity) courses.
And now to tie this to John Kneiling: One of our profs for the several sections of the Dynamics course in the Spring of 1973 (2nd semester, sophomore year) was William G. McLean, a Mechanical Engineer, and who served as the College's Director of Engineering (5 departments) and later Head of Engineering Science. While I was taking McLean's Dynamics class, I found that he knew of John Kneiling, and so Prof. McLean wrote him a note about my interest in railroading. John wrote back and said essentially: "Tell him [Paul] to study economcs, not dynamics." ! (proving once again that "no good deed goes unpunished"). We had a good chuckle at that - at the time I was taking the 1st of what would turn out to be 3 economics courses, and there were no more dynamics courses to be taken anyway.
dakotafredDo I have too much time on my hands, or what?
Perhaps so, but it makes for an interesting and funny read. I never knew that JGK was a graduate in Civil Engineering from University of Illinois, my alma mater. Guess he can't be all bad!!
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Mention of John Kneiling's 3 sons above led me to wonder what happened to his 'personal' and professional papers (proposals, studies, reports, drawings, etc.), as well as the files of the Theodore Kauffeld firm for which he worked for many years ? While some would surely be obsolete, they might still be of historical interest. Others - such as the details of the integral train design - might still be relevant and valid, or at least a good starting point to refine and finalize the design, instead of starting from scratch again.
Sorry, my previous postings referring to zolagorgon on trainorders.com are in error. The web site on which the "my father" post appeared is railroad.net.
Postscript 11:30 a.m. CDT: Checked out another angle, that possibly Zola/McCann was married to one of the Kneiling sons, and he used her e-mail to post. Nope, she's married to somebody else. Leading to the conclusion that -- unless it's possible to hijack somebody else's e-mail address -- the railroad.net post was a prank by Zola/McCann (even if she did have John G.'s death year right).
Do I have too much time on my hands, or what?
wanswheeldakotafred A 'McCann/Kneiling' command yielded no results, but one post of Gorgon's indicated she came from a family of seven kids whose father sounded like the kind of "Life with Father" pater you would expect our John to be. I doubt Zola Gorgon pertains to the John G. Kneiling story. The 1966 obituary of Kneiling’s father-in-law, Angus Malcolm Parkinson, mentions daughter Mrs. John G. Kneiling (Mary Louise) of Staten Island, and grandsons John A., David and Richard Kneiling. At that point in time Mrs. Kneiling was about 44 years old, so she probably was done having babies. Of course, we don’t know yet that they weren’t later divorced. I suppose it’s possible Kneiling had another family with seven kids named after cheese.
dakotafred A 'McCann/Kneiling' command yielded no results, but one post of Gorgon's indicated she came from a family of seven kids whose father sounded like the kind of "Life with Father" pater you would expect our John to be.
aricat George W Hilton was born in 1925 and is a Professor Emeritus at UCLA where he still maintains an office on campus according to the UCLA faculty directory ... Dakotafred, UP's train 5 was a wonderful train, I'm not surprised that Professor Hilton rode it. It was nicer than some other road's named trains. Besides the head end cars; it carried a streamlined sleeper, at least two coaches of post war vintage and a cafe lounge car which served superb food. I rode it in 1964.
George W Hilton was born in 1925 and is a Professor Emeritus at UCLA where he still maintains an office on campus according to the UCLA faculty directory ...
Dakotafred, UP's train 5 was a wonderful train, I'm not surprised that Professor Hilton rode it. It was nicer than some other road's named trains. Besides the head end cars; it carried a streamlined sleeper, at least two coaches of post war vintage and a cafe lounge car which served superb food. I rode it in 1964.
aricat [snipped - PDN] . . . I enjoyed reading Professor Hilton articles in Trains especially his riding the Erie passenger trains in the 1950's. Professor Hilton also was on the conservative side of the divide. He also was a superb writer on railroading and other subjects. . . .
Prof. Hilton wrote that he preferred traveling in coach (and perhaps 'mixed' trains) for a variety of reasons. See:
George W Hilton was born in 1925 and is a Professor Emeritus at UCLA where he still maintains an office on campus according to the UCLA faculty directory.
I enjoyed reading Professor Hilton articles in Trains especially his riding the Erie passenger trains in the 1950's. Professor Hilton also was on the conservative side of the divide. He also was a superb writer on railroading and other subjects.
wanswheelJohn G. Kneiling was born January 18, 1920, received Social Security number 572-16-1542 (indicating California) and died January 22, 2000. If this picture of "Gilbert" is him, he graduated from Stadium High School in Tacoma in 1937. John Gilbert Kneiling was a “Special Research Graduate Assistant in Civil Engineering” at the University of Illinois in 1942. http://www.mocavo.com/Annual-Register-University-of-Illinois-1941-42-Volume-1941-42/975481/431 The Ottawa Journal, May 18, 1949, says, “Mr. and Mrs. Angus Malcolm Parkinson, of Kemptville, announce the engagement of their daughter, Mary Louise, to John Gilbert Kneiling, of New York City, son of Mr. and Mrs. John Kneiling, of Los Angeles, Cal. The marriage will take place on Saturday, June 11, at one o'clock in Westminster Central Church, Toronto.” The January 2014 newsletter of the Immanuel Union Church of Staten Island says Louise Kneiling is one who has “health issues” and is one of the “shut-ins.” http://www.immanuelunionchurch.org/hp_wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/January2014.pdf.
Does anybody know if George W. Hilton is still with us? Certainly it's been a long time between bylines; and, as far as Trains is concerned, he seems to have fallen into the same black hole as JK.
I actually met Hilton once, in Cheyenne, in 1966 or '67, recognizing him as he walked down the platform. He was stretching his legs while No. 5 was being worked. I can't remember what he was doing on the mail train instead of one of the streamliners.
He seemed surprised at being recognized, which is always an endearing trait in a person of his accomplishments.
I found some other comments about JGK on a forum for the Erie-Lackawanna Railroad. Most relate to the acrimony between him and William White, the E-L's CEO in the mid-1960's, over adopting container trains, etc. Here are the links to those comments (hopefully in chronological order):
Re: "John Kneiling Professional Iconoclast":
http://lists.railfan.net/erielack-digest/201206/msg00152.html
Re: "John Kneiling and EL":
http://lists.railfan.net/erielack-digest/201206/msg00153.html
http://lists.railfan.net/erielack-digest/201206/msg00156.html
http://lists.railfan.net/erielack-digest/201206/msg00160.html
Kurt/ sandiego's post above got me to thinking:
I suspect the "professional bomb-thrower" here was not Kneiling, but instead one David P. Morgan. He was the one who hired Kneiling to write columns with 'sound bites' such as "just ignore the regulators" / "just go ahead and break the [misbegotten] law" of economic regulations, etc. But Morgan also hired George W. Hilton to write - and then published - several lengthy scholarly articles on the history and economic effects of ICC regulation, concluding with this one:
Both advocated for the same result, but with different methods - one rabble-rousing, the other more rational and well-reasoned. Orchestrating them both was Morgan. At the time, that result was heresy - many (including my own father) thought the ICC was a necessary and permanent part of the transportation industry. But as events a few years later showed, that wasn't so. The Staggers Act essentially deregulated surface transportation, and then in the mid-1990's the ICC was replaced by the STB.
To some degree, all 3 men must have known that their efforts to that end were in the tradition of 'cathedral builders' - starting something that likely would not be finished in their lifetimes, and that they would have to depend on others coming after them to see through to completion. Fortunately, Morgan lived long enough to see deregulation and the start of the what now seems to have been the next-to-last round of mergers; and Kneiling and Hilton lived long enough to see the industry take its present shape (I presume Hilton is still alive).
aricat John G Kneiling had after his name PE, consulting engineer. He was a professional engineer certified by the National Society of Professional Engineers. He not only holds an engineering degree but has worked under the supervision of another PE for four years before he can sit for an extensive battery of tests for certification and state licensing. You can go to the National Society of Professional Engineers website and read more.
John G Kneiling had after his name PE, consulting engineer. He was a professional engineer certified by the National Society of Professional Engineers. He not only holds an engineering degree but has worked under the supervision of another PE for four years before he can sit for an extensive battery of tests for certification and state licensing. You can go to the National Society of Professional Engineers website and read more.
It might be helpful to remember the context of the time he was writing. The guys on the top rungs of railroads almost always had a operating background. Why? That's where the economic leaverage was. The traffic was what it was. In a regulated environment, there wasn't much anyone could do to move the needle much, so you focused on the cost side of things. The one, big cost item was train crew cost, so the focus was on train productivity - i.e. larger and larger trains.
When all attempts at fixing the problems with regulation came to nearly naught in the 1950s, RRs could not attract the "best and the brightest", but generally had care-taker style CEOs. There were some exeptions - there were "true believers" like Perlman, but in general, status quo was the rule. Tweaking the current state was all that was happening.
The problem was, the whole industry was failing fundamentally and you couldn't "tweak" your way out of it. The whole game had to change. It couldn't be "incrementally reduce the cost of moving the traffic that shows up". It had to be more fundamental - "what needs to move from A to B and how can I do it an make a buck?"
Knieling was just trying to shock anyone who would listen into seeing this for what it was. RRs had BIG problems that needed BIG solutions. He threw quite a few out there hoping just a few pieces would stick.
Now, post Staggers, RRs think about marketing as much as operations and CEOs are not generally operating men. I think Knieling would be pleased, but I'm sure he'd still be rattling cages about things like lack of penetration into the short haul intermodal market, the high cost of intermodal terminals and how much value the RRs give away to 3rd party logisitic providers.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.