Euclid If two-man crews are more cost effective than one-man crews, wouldn’t the railroads want to use two-man crews so the investors would have more money to plunder?
Money to plunder? Yikes, I take it you're not an investor.
The investors ideal is the one button company. Push the button and it returns money in mass quantities - without the necessity of having employees, raw materials, structures, equipment or anything that requires expenditure.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Whether Ichan is a corporate raider or not is certainly open to debate and probably not relevant to this discussion. All I've stated is that stockholders aren't what's drivng the interest in one person train crews. Most stockholders, including myself, aren't all that interested in that issue and defer to whatever solution management and labor can come to terms with. What do I care if trains have one crew member or ten so long as the railroads remain safe and profitable. Notice I stated SAFE too..because I'm interested in the longterm profitability of the businesses I invest in.
Research "Carl Ichan" and "corporate raiders". You'll find plenty.
Norm
True Jeff; however I doubt very much that's what happening at any of the big 7...I've read of that happening but I can't think of any specific examples.. can you?
A rising tide lifts all boats. Unless your boat has some holes in it.
Many activist investors will think nothing of ruining a company long term for short term profit. Once they are through with them, Mom and Pop may have a few extra dollars in their portfolio. However, if their livelihood was working for, or owning a business that served employees at that company, are they better off if the company was shut down to gain that stock increase?
Jeff
I don't care if they only care about the large institutional investors. Ever heard the phrase "a rising tide lifts all boats"? If ABC Aggressive Funds forces the stock to rise then my stock goes up too.. I, the little "mom and pop guy" gets a free ride on their efforts. The only difference is that the folks who invest in the funds pay fund managers out of their earnings while my stock goes along for the ride (for free). So who's smarter here? A good case in point is Bill Ackman and Pershing Square. CP's stock went up due to his investment in time, effort and resources and due in large measure to his smarts in bringing about much needed management changes. Guess what.. the price of my stock went up too... and my contribution in time and effort and thought was nothin.
Convicted One Ulrich Based upon the nature of this and other of your replies, I don't believe that you paid close attention to my original post. In my post I clearly stated: "already well compensated executives and 'contribute nothing to the productive work flow' stockholders" Where did you ever get the idea I said that the executives were the ones contributing nothing to the productive work flow? I likewise believe that your typifying the majority stock holders as being small time "mom and pop" type investors is a little naive. What about the large institutional investors and hedge funds, both often having representation on the board? Personally I suspect they see any penny saved as going right into their pocket. But I'm a cynic.
Ulrich
Based upon the nature of this and other of your replies, I don't believe that you paid close attention to my original post.
In my post I clearly stated: "already well compensated executives and 'contribute nothing to the productive work flow' stockholders"
Where did you ever get the idea I said that the executives were the ones contributing nothing to the productive work flow?
I likewise believe that your typifying the majority stock holders as being small time "mom and pop" type investors is a little naive. What about the large institutional investors and hedge funds, both often having representation on the board? Personally I suspect they see any penny saved as going right into their pocket. But I'm a cynic.
Stock corporations today could give a flying flip about the 'mom & pop' stock holders - their only concern is the institutional investors that can buy or sell enough stock to require SEC filings on their activities and have a big enough voice to get the company leaders to listen to what the institutional investors have to day.
UlrichExecutives who contribute nothing to the workflow?
Ulrich I agree, and from the reports I've read they're all making massive investments in upgrading their plant and in realigning assets to meet anticipated future demands. They're on the right track (yeah I know.. pun).
I agree, and from the reports I've read they're all making massive investments in upgrading their plant and in realigning assets to meet anticipated future demands. They're on the right track (yeah I know.. pun).
Let's hope so. Up-to-date or even ahead-of-its-time infrastructure (not limited to cyberspace) is essential to economic growth and prosperity for our future.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
UlrichNo.. I (and any smart stockholder) will look at the long term consequences first. This is because I don't care what the price of the stock is today, tomorrow, or next week or in ten years from now even. I care about what the price of the stock is in 20 + years from now when I retire.
You rightly look at the long-range, even ultra-long-range picture. Unfortunately, because of the methods of investment analysts and management's manner of compensation, many of them only consider a range of one quarter out up to one to two years.
The rails have correctly focused their operations on the movement of bulk commodities. Unfortunately, the infrastructure they have now will require many changes to accomodate business lines for the future, such as fast, scheduled, hi-value cargo, to replace the shrinking of transport of coal, ethanol and oil in the not-too-distant future.
I've run one man trains and for me, I was ULTRA aware of what was going on. If there was a problem with the train it sure wasn't going ot be because of train handlng !!
For mandatory directives and such I would always stop the train in a suitable location before diverting my attention to another task.
I would often get out of the seat and walk to the other side of the cab to observe the train on a curve on the conductors side and also to keep from getting too " comfortable" .
Toilet time was with a safely stopped train.
ON the rare occasion I did have problems I simply sat and waited for help.
Paul of Covington Ulrich Moreover, as a stockholder in five of the big systems I'm never consulted about such decisions, so I'm not sure how this assault you speak of is perpetrated in my (and other stockholders') interest. No, you're not consulted directly, but you look to buy the stock that gives you the best return on your investment. The executives know that they are judged on the value of their stock so they will act to reduce expenses now, this year or this quarter no matter what the long term consequences are. You vote with your dollars.
Ulrich Moreover, as a stockholder in five of the big systems I'm never consulted about such decisions, so I'm not sure how this assault you speak of is perpetrated in my (and other stockholders') interest.
No, you're not consulted directly, but you look to buy the stock that gives you the best return on your investment. The executives know that they are judged on the value of their stock so they will act to reduce expenses now, this year or this quarter no matter what the long term consequences are. You vote with your dollars.
No.. I (and any smart stockholder) will look at the long term consequences first. This is because I don't care what the price of the stock is today, tomorrow, or next week or in ten years from now even. I care about what the price of the stock is in 20 + years from now when I retire. So the long term repercussions of any decisions that are made today are of more interest to me than the short term. Other than that I care about dividends, but not that much.. so long as the dividend is consistent with what other profitable companies pay out then I'm happy.
Someplace recently I saw the following quote (or similar):
"Smart equipment, smart network, smart data, dumb management".
- Paul North.
UlrichMoreover, as a stockholder in five of the big systems I'm never consulted about such decisions, so I'm not sure how this assault you speak of is perpetrated in my (and other stockholders') interest.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Convicted One And lets not fool ourselves, where ever implementation is prescribed, the prime motivation is money. It's a money grab where already well compensated executives and "contribute nothing to the productive work flow" stockholders wish to continue their assault upon the middle class by creating yet another opportunity to skim profit off the top, and keep it for themselves. Thoughts?
And lets not fool ourselves, where ever implementation is prescribed, the prime motivation is money. It's a money grab where already well compensated executives and "contribute nothing to the productive work flow" stockholders wish to continue their assault upon the middle class by creating yet another opportunity to skim profit off the top, and keep it for themselves.
Thoughts?
Okay. I'm all for two person crews for the same reasons others have offered. Your comment about stockholders wishing to continue their assault on the middle class is, however, completely silly. The stockholders are generally people like you and I and your neighbour who either own shares directly or through an instrument like a mutual fund. For the most part they're middle class with a sprinkling of poor and rich thrown in. Moreover, as a stockholder in five of the big systems I'm never consulted about such decisions, so I'm not sure how this assault you speak of is perpetrated in my (and other stockholders') interest.
Executives who contribute nothing to the workflow? I'm sure there aren't too many of those anymore. Their contribution may be more esoteric and indirect than miles run or number of containers loaded, but if they're on the payroll for any length of time they're likely earning they're keep. I read the quarterly and annual reports, and unless there is massive and unprecedented fraud and deception these are all very well run businesses.
Don't worry about getting downsized for now. But if you're young you should indeed worry if you're not upgrading your skills. The Internet of Things and AI are just around the corner and will change life for all of us in drastic ways over the next decade. Your job and mine will change or be eliminated. Or worse, the jobs we now do will be reduced to mindless boredom as we count the days to our retirement.
Thanks Paul. That was a very interesting read.
The things one can learn on a railroad forum; amazing.
In the middle of that "One Man Crew" article in the August issue, two similar rear-end collisions on a major 1-man crew user - Quebec, North Shore, & Labrador - were described. In both, the dispatcher warned the crew of the following train of the other train ahead, the crew acknowledged the presence of the other train ahead by pushing the "proximity alerter"s button - and the collisions still happened.
So ? In one instance, it was a solo engineer; in the other, it was a trainee and an experienced trainer = 2 man crew.
My knee-jerk conclusion is that this - and the several NTSB reports linked above - demonstrates that there is no inherent added safety - or lack thereof - with either a 1-man or 2-man crew.
Instead, the key is undeviating attention to the task at hand.
Note that in over 50 years of nuclear operations, the US Navy has never had a major reactor accident. Why ? "You shall pay full attention to all gauges and controls, all the time." But, they usually have rotating 6-hour "watches", off for 12 hours, then repeat, with occasional 24-hour stints, so that can mess up their biological clocks/ circadian rhythyms similar to a railroad crew (non)schedule. (See: http://www.rickcampbellauthor.com/styled/index.html#topic7 , "The Daily Routine - The Watch Cycle".) Then again, they're in/ on a relatively stable and comfortable platform with colleagues and supervisors close at hand.
1. European freight trains often move at much higher speeds with scheduled (just in time) deliveries of higher value cargo.
2. Consequently, higher rates can be charged and engineer jobs preserved, as well as fewer accidents.
3. Higher speeds yield greater track capacity.
4. Ed, you sound like short-sighted management, only thinking about labor costs, first and foremost.
Think volume and number of cars.
Assume you need to move 200 cars.
Take the European train model...say 100 cars.
American train, 200 cars...
So you want to pay two engineers, each at a higher hourly rate, to move your 200 cars in two separate 100 car trains, with the associated risk, track time and occupancy, fuel cost and locomotive hours, or one engineer and one conductor at a lower hourly rate to move the 200 cars at once.
Compare the volume of cars running on American rails versus the volume of cars on Europe's rails.
23 17 46 11
BaltACD Paul_D_North_Jr BaltACD "XYZ Detector, MP 123, Track 2, Hot Journal Axle 477, Inspect, Detector Out" "XYZ Detector, MP 123, Track 1, Dragging Equipment Axle 514, Inspect, Detector Out" Three hours later . . . after each engineer has struggled something like 120 to 129 cars back, on the ballast shoulder or between the two stopped trains - and hopefully no bridge without a walkway - and then returned, will the actual cause of the stop be known. Unless each train is going in the opposite direction of the other, and the respective engineers are able to stop their trains with the locomotives near the other train's reported defective car, so that each can inspect the other's train. Then see how they'll be able to fix it - or even just set-out the defective car ? [snipped - PDN] - Paul North.
Paul_D_North_Jr BaltACD "XYZ Detector, MP 123, Track 2, Hot Journal Axle 477, Inspect, Detector Out" "XYZ Detector, MP 123, Track 1, Dragging Equipment Axle 514, Inspect, Detector Out" Three hours later . . . after each engineer has struggled something like 120 to 129 cars back, on the ballast shoulder or between the two stopped trains - and hopefully no bridge without a walkway - and then returned, will the actual cause of the stop be known. Unless each train is going in the opposite direction of the other, and the respective engineers are able to stop their trains with the locomotives near the other train's reported defective car, so that each can inspect the other's train. Then see how they'll be able to fix it - or even just set-out the defective car ? [snipped - PDN] - Paul North.
BaltACD "XYZ Detector, MP 123, Track 2, Hot Journal Axle 477, Inspect, Detector Out" "XYZ Detector, MP 123, Track 1, Dragging Equipment Axle 514, Inspect, Detector Out"
"XYZ Detector, MP 123, Track 1, Dragging Equipment Axle 514, Inspect, Detector Out"
Three hours later . . . after each engineer has struggled something like 120 to 129 cars back, on the ballast shoulder or between the two stopped trains - and hopefully no bridge without a walkway - and then returned, will the actual cause of the stop be known.
Unless each train is going in the opposite direction of the other, and the respective engineers are able to stop their trains with the locomotives near the other train's reported defective car, so that each can inspect the other's train. Then see how they'll be able to fix it - or even just set-out the defective car ?
[snipped - PDN]
CJtrainguyThe comparison to how freights in Europe are run seems a bit lacking: if the entire train is 0.3 miles long, it may work with one guy up in the engine. But when the train is 1 mile long, it's a different ball game.
European freight trains can be 835-1524 meters long (0.51-0.95 miles). Perhaps one cause of many of our problems is excessive length (pulled draw bars, longer distance to stop, slower aceleration, need to lengthen sidings, easier to maintain schedules, etc.). Single-man crews with greater density of train running might be the answer.
I read the "One Man Crews" article in the August "Trains", and certainly the big 'roads trot out some convincing arguments for the idea, why it'll be OK and won't cause any problems and such, but something was bothering me, like I'd heard something similar before. Maybe it was that iron-throated "Ahem!" in the back of my mind.
Then I remembered. The "Titanic." The lack of lifeboats.
You see, back around the turn of the 20th Century shipping line magnates had convinced themselves that with the advances in ship design and construction lifeboats for all would never be needed. Oh, they had some convincing arguments:
"These new ships can easily ride out storms that would have overwhemed older ships."
"They have watertight compartments. Nothing's likely to damage more than two of them at any point of the hull."
"We have wireless now. A ship in trouble can call for help, all the boats will be needed for will be to transfer passengers from one ship to another. We don't need 'boats for all' to do that."
"Boats for all might even be dangerous. All that extra top-weight could make the ship unstable."
"All the above being said, they're just not worth the money."
Needless to say all those self-delusional arguments went right out the window on the morning of April 15, 1912. Shipping companys, and let me say NO ship carried enough boats for all in those days, couldn't get extra lifeboats on board fast enough. If they didn't, no one would sail with them, and then they'd REALLY have a money problem to worry about!
This is why "Titanic" junkies like myself love the old girl so much. Even a century after her sinking, she still has so much to teach us.
In my humble opinion, we're heading for a digital "Titanic" one of these days, but that's another story.
Jim Wrinn's "From The Editor" column this month says it all. I stand with Mr. Jim on this one.
When one person is trying to correct problems that require two people, and the entire railroad is constipated as a result, I'm sure U.P.S. will be most patient and understanding. Perfectly acceptable for their multimillion dollar shipments to be delayed for lack of a few hours of hourly pay. And how much are they paying the person who made the decision?
Tom
Euclid It sounds like the argument against one-man crews is based on two reasons: 1) Contingencies arise that call for extra labor that exceeds the ability of one person. 2) Two heads are better than one for assuring safe operation. Obviously item #1 alone is not sufficient to make one-man crews non-cost-effective. So item #2 is offered to tip the balance economically to make one-man crews non-cost-effective. That raises the question of the economic value of having a second person in terms of added safety. Has this item #2 been statistically evaluated and presented as objective fact by either labor or management?
1) Contingencies arise that call for extra labor that exceeds the ability of one person.
2) Two heads are better than one for assuring safe operation.
Four recent NTSB reports would suggest the multi-person crews have failed to accomplish either objective in terms of safety.
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/RAB1504.aspx
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/RAR1502.aspx
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/RAB1414.aspx
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/RAR1402.aspx
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/RAB1405.aspx
Paul_D_North_Jr BaltACD "XYZ Detector, MP 123, Track 2, Hot Journal Axle 477, Inspect, Detector Out" "XYZ Detector, MP 123, Track 1, Dragging Equipment Axle 514, Inspect, Detector Out" Three hours later . . . after each engineer has struggled something like 120 to 129 cars back, on the ballast shoulder or between the two stopped trains - and hopefully no bridge without a walkway - and then returned, will the actual cause of the stop be known. Unless each train is going in the opposite direction of the other, and the respective engineers are able to stop their trains with the locomotives near the other train's reported defective car, so that each can inspect the other's train. Then see how they'll be able to fix it - or even just set-out the defective car ? Only when there's a separate cost account set up and honestly reported and administered for "Delays due to lack of a 2nd crew member" will the claimed savings be trustworthy. When the value and hourly costs of the one-man crew locomotives, cars, lading, lost revenue from the track being blocked and unusable while the situation is remedied ("opportunity cost", often in the range of $3,000 to $10,000 per hour), only then will the "penny wise, pound foolish" illusion of labor cost savings from this become apparent. - Paul North.
Only when there's a separate cost account set up and honestly reported and administered for "Delays due to lack of a 2nd crew member" will the claimed savings be trustworthy.
When the value and hourly costs of the one-man crew locomotives, cars, lading, lost revenue from the track being blocked and unusable while the situation is remedied ("opportunity cost", often in the range of $3,000 to $10,000 per hour), only then will the "penny wise, pound foolish" illusion of labor cost savings from this become apparent.
Don't forget - Defect Detectors only report their findings after the last car of the train has cleared the detector circuits - it is a very rare occurance to 'double barrel' trains in the same direction (especially large one's) - the detector reports identified are for trains operating in opposite directions, so there is likely one to two miles between the rear ends of the trains; however, they are most likely occupying the same track segments between control points - thus the railroad is shut down.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.