time for the unions to step up

[tree68]

Euclid

Perhaps that semantic point is your only intent.  So just to clarify, when you say:

"The train did not run away until after the firefighters and non-T&E employee left the scene (having shut down the locomotive which was keeping the independent brakes applied - the loss of which I surmise caused the runaway)" ---do you mean that you surmise that the MM&A employee and firefighters are at fault?

Given our current understanding of the situation,  engineer set up the firefighters and the non-T&E employee to fail.   Had he properly secured the train, it would have stayed put.

But, if the firefighters had not followed what appears to be established procedure (shutting down the unit that was having problems) and had left the unit running, the train would likely have stayed put.  If the non-T&E employee had the ability to start another unit, thus maintaining main res air, the train would likely have stayed put.

The firefighters and non-T&E employee took the actions they took unaware that their actions would be the straw that broke the camel's back.  I would opine that their actions did, indeed, cause the runaway.  However "fault" implies that they acted in a negligent way, and I don't believe that's the case.  I believe they acted within their training, unaware of the deficiency, and with no obligation to ensure that the train was otherwise properly secured.

For now, though, we just have to wait to see what comes out of the legal proceedings.

[Euclid]

tree68

Euclid

In the first place, the fire fighters shutting down the engine and the MM&A employee who left the train unattended after the fire had absolutely nothing to do with the runaway. 

Alas, I must disagree.

There is no question that the engineer did not properly secure the train.  Setting sufficient handbrakes on the cars would certainly have prevented the runaway.

BUT - it certainly appears that the engineer did secure the train, however incorrectly.  The train did not run away until after the firefighters and non-T&E employee left the scene (having shut down the locomotive which was keeping the independent brakes applied - the loss of which I surmise caused the runaway).

When I use the term “secure,” I am referring only to proper securement in compliance with MM&A special instructions and Canadian Rule 112. 

By using the term “secure,” I do not intend it to include holding a train with air brakes supplementing handbrakes even though this may indeed prevent the train from rolling away. 

One could say that if a train does not roll away, it is secured, but I use the term “secure” exclusively to refer to its technical meaning of proper securement according to the rules.

Saying the train ran away because it lost its airbrakes is like saying it ran away because of gravity.

Perhaps that semantic point is your only intent.  So just to clarify, when you say:

"The train did not run away until after the firefighters and non-T&E employee left the scene (having shut down the locomotive which was keeping the independent brakes applied - the loss of which I surmise caused the runaway)" ---do you mean that you surmise that the MM&A employee and firefighters are at fault?

 

[tree68]

Euclid

In the first place, the fire fighters shutting down the engine and the MM&A employee who left the train unattended after the fire had absolutely nothing to do with the runaway. 

Alas, I must disagree.

There is no question that the engineer did not properly secure the train.  Setting sufficient handbrakes on the cars would certainly have prevented the runaway.

BUT - it certainly appears that the engineer did secure the train, however incorrectly.  The train did not run away until after the firefighters and non-T&E employee left the scene (having shut down the locomotive which was keeping the independent brakes applied - the loss of which I surmise caused the runaway).

I suggest that it's doubtful that this was the first time this engineer had employed this short-cut to secure the train (I'm sure that will come out in the trial(s)).  It was, however, apparently the first time that a train at that location had run away under those circumstances.  Given the timeline as we know it, I would opine that the actions of the firefighters and non-T&E employee had everything to do with the runaway.

Since we don't yet know if the practice was wide-spread among the engineers who routinely parked trains at that location, we can't say how lucky it is that such an incident didn't happen earlier.

This in no way relieves the engineer of responsibility for what happened (assuming our assumptions are correct about insufficient brakes - and it appears they are).

I would also opine that barring evidence to the contrary, that the DS and the supervisor, undoubtedly believing that the train had been properly secured, have little responsibility in the incident.  That assumes that they were unaware of the practices that caused the runaway (apparently relying on the independent brakes to hold the parked train).  Another factor may be whether any checks and balances (ie, the engineer reporting number of brakes set) were in place and properly observed.

Now - let's get back to our regularly scheduled programming.

[ACY Tom]

Euclid ---

........and while they're arranging help or relief, they would probably also organize a disciplinary hearing.  In this industry, it's always the guy at the bottom of the food chain.  Nobody at the top takes the heat if they can push it to someone lower on the totem pole.

[coborn35]

Ullrich you sure you werent a CN manager around the time of the DM&IR takeover? "I know how to do things and I don't care that you did things a certain way for 70 years I am going to change it!"

[Euclid]

ACY

Euclid ---

You say they had no reason to expect a problem.  Human beings get tired.  Human managers should know that, and should understand that one tired person at the end of a long and lonely shift might be tired, and perhaps not as sharp and alert as we would like.  Long hours and one-man crews are seen as efficient, but maybe they should more properly be seen as red flags. 

Tom

I was referring to you saying this:  “This was complicated by incorrect information from a railroad representative (not a qualified engineer) who allowed fire fighters to leave the train unattended and without power after putting out the first fire.”

In the first place, the fire fighters shutting down the engine and the MM&A employee who left the train unattended after the fire had absolutely nothing to do with the runaway. 

In the second place, no supervisor is responsible for making sure that an employee does not fail to do his job because he might be tired after long hours on duty. 

If the MM&A engineer was too tired or lacked the time to secure the train, he should have told his supervisors, so they could arrange help or relief.   

[henry6]

Two people usually will compliment and supplement each other...anyway the chance is better that one of two instead of one of one would have done the proper thing.

[schlimm]

ACY

Euclid ---

You say they had no reason to expect a problem.  Human beings get tired.  Human managers should know that, and should understand that one tired person at the end of a long and lonely shift might be tired, and perhaps not as sharp and alert as we would like.  Long hours and one-man crews are seen as efficient, but maybe they should more properly be seen as red flags. 

Tom

How would a conductor, probably, equally tired, have helped prevent what happened?

[Firelock76]

selector

Firelock76

Take it from me boys, electronics can FAIL, and the more gee-whiz they are and the more people get addicted to them the more catastrophic the failure. 

Nothing beats the ol' brain housing group.

I seem to recall that the brains were the prima facie failure in Lac Megantic.   Some would argue that brains don't fare much better in the long run than do the gee-whiz thingamabobs.

-Crandell

Oh, no argument with you there, there was a massive brain failure at Lac-Megantic, on someone's part.  The thing is, you can't put a failed circuit board in prison as an example to the others.

[ACY Tom]

Euclid ---

You say they had no reason to expect a problem.  Human beings get tired.  Human managers should know that, and should understand that one tired person at the end of a long and lonely shift might be tired, and perhaps not as sharp and alert as we would like.  Long hours and one-man crews are seen as efficient, but maybe they should more properly be seen as red flags. 

Tom

[Euclid]

ACY

I don't have an in-depth knowledge of the Lac Megantic situation, but from all accounts the engineer was at the end of a long solo trip, and evidently failed to set enough hand brakes.  He was understandably tired. This was complicated by incorrect information from a railroad representative (not a qualified engineer) who allowed fire fighters to leave the train unattended and without power after putting out the first fire.

The fact that the engine had been shut down was known to the company, and they approved leaving it like that.  But there was no reason for them to expect a problem from leaving the engine shut down. 

[henry6]

Time and motion studies, sound's effects on attention, two or maybe more people involved with a task, safety and attentiveness have all been studied and the results thrown away or otherwise ignored in the name of (false) economies. If safety of individuals be they employees or general public, property--private or public, or equipment, shippers' products, and the time and money lost in the event of an accident and the closing of the rail line, is of no consequence, then one man crews ought to work out fine. But real economy partnered with safety and efficiency says two man crews are best. We keep trying to beat the odds and in my opinion, in just doesn't work in the long run.

[ACY Tom]

Selector:

Very true.  I don't have an in-depth knowledge of the Lac Megantic situation, but from all accounts the engineer was at the end of a long solo trip, and evidently failed to set enough hand brakes.  He was understandably tired. This was complicated by incorrect information from a railroad representative (not a qualified engineer) who allowed fire fighters to leave the train unattended and without power after putting out the first fire.

To my mind, the fact that tired people can and do make mistakes, is a persuasive argument in favor of two-man crews to ensure that all procedures are carefully followed. 

[selector]

Firelock76

Take it from me boys, electronics can FAIL, and the more gee-whiz they are and the more people get addicted to them the more catastrophic the failure. 

Nothing beats the ol' brain housing group.

I seem to recall that the brains were the prima facie failure in Lac Megantic.   Some would argue that brains don't fare much better in the long run than do the gee-whiz thingamabobs.

-Crandell

[Ulrich]

Everything could always be better. But to say that railroads do well in spite of management is I think a bit of a stretch. Sure, they could do better, as can we all. And yes, when ever two or more people are involved in any kind of undertaking there will be some level of dysfunction. You will never get rid of that so long as people remain imperfect, have feelings, and do stuff that contravenes logic and common sense.

[Deggesty]

Jeff Hergert: "My conductor and I were just taking about this today.  It sometimes seems like our company, probably like many large corporations, have departments fighting against each other.  Each has it's target for their numbers.  Each wants to make it's numbers.  Sometimes what shows as a savings to one, becomes a cost to another.  In the long run, the company isn't any better off. "

Yes, you will almost always have the accounting and one or more other departments at odds with each other. Accounting wants to keep inventory low; Production wants a continuous supply of raw material and other items that go into the manufacture; Maintenance wants a supply of spare parts for the manufacturing equipment such that production will not have to stop because a particular part is not in stock--and "Machine Downs" can be costly in terms of lost production time and the higher cost of overnight shipping.

At one time, in consultation with the lead maintenance techs, I was able to reduce our inventory of various spare parts for the manufacturing equipment--and the maintenance department treated us to a lunch! I thought I was simply doing my job.

[schlimm]

Ulrich

I'm not so sure reducing crew size is the best way to go at this point, even from a cost effectiveness standpoint. Maybe someday.. Unless you run a very inefficient business, cost cutting will only incrementally improve the bottom line. In this case the savings are capped at whatever the railroad currently pays out in conductors' wages. A much better way to improve the bottom line is to focus on improving the top line, by increasing sales.

I agree, but increasing sales means other operating practices would need to be changed dramatically, while cutting labor costs is comparatively easy.   Running trainload and container trains and bulk coal and oil trains is cheaper and easier than high priority (and higher priced)  "just in time" freight which might require more switching and car handling.

[henry6]

Murphy Siding

henry6

Railroads, like so many other industries in this country, are investor controlled with management seeking to get the most money back to the investors as possible.

  When was that any different?

It has been cyclic in business. Sometimes investor capital goes into improvements, expansion, and investors don't get huge and immediate rewards. Other times like now, investors or investment management, seek out ways to trim costs, defers maintenance, improvements, equipment, and remove jobs and employees so that a bigger percentage of revenue is taken to the bottom line.

[Murphy Siding]

henry6

Railroads, like so many other industries in this country, are investor controlled with management seeking to get the most money back to the investors as possible.

  When was that any different?

[Ulrich]

I'm not so sure reducing crew size is the best way to go at this point, even from a cost effectiveness standpoint. Maybe someday.. Unless you run a very inefficient business, cost cutting will only incrementally improve the bottom line. In this case the savings are capped at whatever the railroad currently pays out in conductors' wages. A much better way to improve the bottom line is to focus on improving the top line, by increasing sales.

[Euclid]

ACY

Does the second person in the cab absorb so much profit that it's really necessary to get rid of him? 

It may seem unsavory to overstress profit, but profit only comes after putting money at risk.  That money can be lost without any profit materializing.  So profit is sweet reward, and every speck of it counts in business. 

Reducing cost increases profit and replacing labor with automation often can reduce costs.  So yes, reducing crew size is important.  And it won’t stop by just removing the conductor.  PTC removing the conductor is the door to removing the engineer.  And then there is the potential to automate and speed up the vast complex of yard switching.  Don’t think that is not being eyed with an aim to revolutionize. 

Railroading lends itself to automation because of the self-guiding track principle, and it will one day be a giant transportation vending machine.    

[jeffhergert]

Ulrich

I look at the numbers... if the railroads weren't well managed then that would show up in the numbers. No?

Most of us are of the opinion that the company makes money in spite of itself.  Not so much that they can't make money the way they are run, but they could be making more money.  (On the other hand, most of us out in the field would probably be making less.) 

My conductor and I were just taking about this today.  It sometimes seems like our company, probably like many large corporations, have departments fighting against each other.  Each has it's target for their numbers.  Each wants to make it's numbers.  Sometimes what shows as a savings to one, becomes a cost to another.  In the long run, the company isn't any better off. 

It might be an urban legend, but Warren Buffet supposedly called one of the railroads serving Omaha, "The biggest mismanaged gold mine in the world."  If it's true that he said it, I don't think he meant that it wasn't successful, just that it could be more so. 

Jeff 

[Ulrich]

Well that's a good point Henry. Investor interests are often short sighted, focussed more on the next quarter results than on ten years down the road. That's a problem most of us face. Sometimes short term gains are realized at the expense of long term profitability.

[ACY Tom]

Ulrich:

It's true that a good manager can manage anything.  But it takes a very special person to do that.  Many can't.   I've met exactly two in my 52 years in the work force.  I've also seen many situations where the productivity of the workers increased in direct proportion to their distance from the manager.

The innate efficiency of the railroad, in terms of fuel efficiency alone, probably contributes more to the bottom line than any ten MBA's ever did.  And compare the number of tons of freight that can be handled by one trucker, with the number of tons that can be handled by one two-man railroad crew.  If freight railroad management can't make that profitable, they're not likely to make anything profitable.  Does the second person in the cab absorb so much profit that it's really necessary to get rid of him? 

[henry6]

Railroads, like so many other industries in this country, are investor controlled with management seeking to get the most money back to the investors as possible. In such an atmosphere it appears that saving money is the most important activity of any business and quality and quantity of product often suffers. A railroad may save money by delivering shippers cars twice a week instead of four or five times but if the shipper suffers and goes to trucks or worse yet out of business or moves, what has the company and its investors gained? Seeking the highest return on investment for the investors may not be seeking the highest return for the company in the long run when business turns away or otherwise disappears. Don't blame the unions for this kind of thinking. Yes, technology and business models have changed. Running trains and railroads from point to point eliminating as much as possible terminal costs has meant fewer trains, fewer employees, and higher rates of return perhaps but not necessarily higher profits.

[dehusman]

I would think that the BNSF/SMART agreement is an example of a union "stepping up to the plate".  If you look at history, any time somebody tries to maintain the status quo against change, they ultimately lose.

The railroad industry is changing.  The economic conditions are changing.  Technology is changing.  Regulation is changing.  One man crew operation is already here.  Its not going away.

SMART saw that things were changing and is trying to adapt ahead of the curve. Whether its the right way or whether their approach will work is certainly up for debate.  But you can't say that the union (and the railroad) aren't "stepping up" to try any keep their people relevant and part of the future of railroads.

[gardendance]

I'm not sure making the railroad industry less efficient than the trucking industry is the way to preserve railroad jobs.

[Ulrich]

Thanks MP173. ACY, it would indeed be a learning curve. Trucking and rail are two totally different beasts. But if you're smart enough to run one you're smart enough to run the other. All I've stated is that railroad managers seem to be doing a fine job..and I'm not taking anything away from the rail workers who also appear to be doing an outstanding job. I look at the numbers... if the railroads weren't well managed then that would show up in the numbers. No?

[ACY Tom]

One small correction:  "Ulrich knows how to run a trucking business."

This is according to his own bio.  I can respect that, but I don't think that knowledge automatically translates into running a railroad.   I don't know him, and would rather withhold judgment.   Maybe he would do a fine job running a railroad, but I think he would have to go through a bit of a learning curve first.  Comparing the railroad to trucking or air transportation is not apples to oranges.  It's more like apples to elephants.

[MP173]

mackb4:

Ulrich can speak for himself, but let me chime in here....I believe he knows how to run a transportation business.

Ed