BaltACD n012944 kgbw49 OK, so what about the 28 hour "day"? Any thoughts in that regard? Thanks for a great discussion, by the way. It is gone. Back to the 24 hour day. Since I have been retired for almost 3 months - in going to a 24 hour day - are all schedules operating on a 7 day basis, or a 5 day basis or a every other day basis or a 3 day basis and maybe only on a weekly basis? There are many ways to implement a 24 hour clock that isn't really 24 hours.
n012944 kgbw49 OK, so what about the 28 hour "day"? Any thoughts in that regard? Thanks for a great discussion, by the way. It is gone. Back to the 24 hour day.
kgbw49 OK, so what about the 28 hour "day"? Any thoughts in that regard? Thanks for a great discussion, by the way.
OK, so what about the 28 hour "day"? Any thoughts in that regard? Thanks for a great discussion, by the way.
It is gone. Back to the 24 hour day.
Since I have been retired for almost 3 months - in going to a 24 hour day - are all schedules operating on a 7 day basis, or a 5 day basis or a every other day basis or a 3 day basis and maybe only on a weekly basis? There are many ways to implement a 24 hour clock that isn't really 24 hours.
It depends on the train. Many of the trains are going back to a 7 day a week schedule. Some will be on a 5 day a week schedule. It really depends on the market.
An "expensive model collector"
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
kgbw49OK, so what about the 28 hour "day"? Any thoughts in that regard? Thanks for a great discussion, by the way.
Back in the early days of the ConRail acquisition and ConRail senior managers were given control of operations their plan was 'fewer, bigger trains'. As they implemented those plans the entire CSX system ground into gridlock. A 'big train' could not be yard in a terminal until a 'big train' left the terminal so as to provide space to yard the inbound 'big grain', the bigger problem was that the outbound big train needed the power from the inbound big train. Trains were bigger than the terminals could handle on a 24 hour basis.
I don't have facts and figures on the volume in car loads that were being handled in this grid lock condition. I do know that the 'cars on line' metric was excessive - approaching double what fluidity had shown to be the norm. The metric was bad enough that the FRA ordered both CSX and NS to file service level reports on either a weekly or monthly basis (Oldtimers...)
At the time I retired, the 28 hour day seemed to be keeping the network fluid, without undue congestion entering termnals and without undue power delays on departing trains, despite having trains as large as 14K feet. There again I do not have car load statistics to know just how 'busy' the merchandise network was at the time.
Precision Schedules in reality only apply to repeatable intermodal, automotive and merchandise traffic. When you get into bulk commodity traffic - coal, grain, ore, ethanol, oil and all the other commodities that are handled, scheduling is at the mercy of when the shipper releases the train to the carrier. As shippers, they want empties to load when they want them, they want loads pulled when they want them - once the loads are pulled it is in the carriers best interests to keep them moving consistant with the avilability of manpower, motive power and inspection requirements (1000 mile inspections) and likewise when consignees release empties the same movement expectations and realities apply.
The normal heirarchy of priority is - Premire Intermodal (UPS & FedEx), Regular Intermodal, Automotive (both loads and empties), Merchandise, Local Freight (crews that actually service customers), Bulk Commodity - sprinkle in Amtrak and Commuter Rail as seasoning and you have the CSX Operating stew.
Perhaps on a different note, it'll be interesting to see if "precision railroading" can solve some of CSX's biggest traffic knots. Toldeo and the B&O west of Garrett, in particular, are always melting down or on the verge of it. Sure, Toldeo and Chicago aren't helped by having other roads to cross, and Barr Yard is tiny compared to what the traffic demands, but it'll be interesting to see.
Whether EHH is evil or not, I don't really think so. Corporate raiders aside, some companies just need pruning: and CSX is a perfect candidate. Top-heavy, not the best-run company. It takes somebody with no allegiances but money and efficiency, like Harrison, to cut the deadwood and figure out what really makes the company function. Now like any pruned bush, it'll look odd, and too much will be cut off in places. But then the company can grow, just like the metaphorical bush, unhindered by uneven growth and decay.
Just look at CN, and even CP. Yeah, it wasn't all happy-happy over at those two orgs, but he dropped CP's woefully underperforming operations from 80 to 60 in terms of operating ratio - that's pretty incredible for only a few years. Sure there were losses, but now the road can focus on the future without much baggage. I know they're starting to sprout new foliage already, based on what I've heard.
CN is an undisputed industry leader, which took the best of Harrision and has done well in the years since. If Harrison hates marginal lines, then why didn't he cut all these branch lines in northern Michigan? Train still runs to L'anse daily, and is rarely over a half dozen cars. Not shortlined!
So that's my assessment. Now to leave a tidbit for discussion. CSX + CP gives you majority control of the IHB...and at the least, a closer relationship between CSX and CP seems likely.
BaltACD samfp1943 From the link as posted by Brian Schmidt: FTA:"...Minimize car dwell time in yards. Since cars spend most of their time in yards, reducing dwell time is the most effective way to improve car velocity, or the number of miles they travel per day. Minimize car classifications. Switching a car as few times as possible also reduces car cycle times, allowing the railroad to use fewer cars. Build large blocks of traffic or, in lower-density lanes, haul a block as close as possible to the destination to minimize handling at intermediate yards en route. Use multiple traffic outlets. By having more than one way to get a block of cars to its destination, a railroad can balance traffic flows, improve transit times, and reduce the need for extra trains. Run general-purpose trains. A unit train is more efficient only when loading and unloading times are 24 hours or less, the train shuttles between the same origin and destination, and operates seven days a week in each direction. Unless a train meets all three criteria, run the traffic in general-purpose trains. Balance train movements by direction. Canceling trains on low-volume weekend days can leave locomotives and crews in the wrong places, resulting in deadhead moves that increase costs. Minimize power requirements. Get the most out of every locomotive, the most expensive piece of rolling stock on the railroad. Limit hours spent idling and maximize available horsepower. Strive for steady workflow. Avoid surges and lulls by leveling out work as much as possible across every location on the railroad..." And it isn't like CSX hasn't been implementing all these ideas since John Snow parachuted out of the corporation. None of these are new concepts and all have previously been implemented in various iterations of the operating plan.
samfp1943 From the link as posted by Brian Schmidt: FTA:"...Minimize car dwell time in yards. Since cars spend most of their time in yards, reducing dwell time is the most effective way to improve car velocity, or the number of miles they travel per day. Minimize car classifications. Switching a car as few times as possible also reduces car cycle times, allowing the railroad to use fewer cars. Build large blocks of traffic or, in lower-density lanes, haul a block as close as possible to the destination to minimize handling at intermediate yards en route. Use multiple traffic outlets. By having more than one way to get a block of cars to its destination, a railroad can balance traffic flows, improve transit times, and reduce the need for extra trains. Run general-purpose trains. A unit train is more efficient only when loading and unloading times are 24 hours or less, the train shuttles between the same origin and destination, and operates seven days a week in each direction. Unless a train meets all three criteria, run the traffic in general-purpose trains. Balance train movements by direction. Canceling trains on low-volume weekend days can leave locomotives and crews in the wrong places, resulting in deadhead moves that increase costs. Minimize power requirements. Get the most out of every locomotive, the most expensive piece of rolling stock on the railroad. Limit hours spent idling and maximize available horsepower. Strive for steady workflow. Avoid surges and lulls by leveling out work as much as possible across every location on the railroad..."
From the link as posted by Brian Schmidt:
FTA:"...Minimize car dwell time in yards. Since cars spend most of their time in yards, reducing dwell time is the most effective way to improve car velocity, or the number of miles they travel per day. Minimize car classifications. Switching a car as few times as possible also reduces car cycle times, allowing the railroad to use fewer cars. Build large blocks of traffic or, in lower-density lanes, haul a block as close as possible to the destination to minimize handling at intermediate yards en route. Use multiple traffic outlets. By having more than one way to get a block of cars to its destination, a railroad can balance traffic flows, improve transit times, and reduce the need for extra trains. Run general-purpose trains. A unit train is more efficient only when loading and unloading times are 24 hours or less, the train shuttles between the same origin and destination, and operates seven days a week in each direction. Unless a train meets all three criteria, run the traffic in general-purpose trains. Balance train movements by direction. Canceling trains on low-volume weekend days can leave locomotives and crews in the wrong places, resulting in deadhead moves that increase costs. Minimize power requirements. Get the most out of every locomotive, the most expensive piece of rolling stock on the railroad. Limit hours spent idling and maximize available horsepower. Strive for steady workflow. Avoid surges and lulls by leveling out work as much as possible across every location on the railroad..."
And it isn't like CSX hasn't been implementing all these ideas since John Snow parachuted out of the corporation. None of these are new concepts and all have previously been implemented in various iterations of the operating plan.
Exactly. I have no question that CSX has a fairly efficient and executable operating plan that fits their markets. Everybody does these days, and everybody goes about it pretty much the same way with different versions of the same tools. It's not like the rest of the RR world stood still while EHH was at CN and CP.
The big question is how big is the gap between the plan and the actual and what methods are available to close the gap? Perhaps some good, solid, consistent managment could shave a few point off the OR. Most of the heavy lifting on the plan side has been done year ago.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Murphy SidingJust for clarity, because you talk about both places, do you live In Wisconsin or Texas?
Geographic location for me is hard to pin down as I used to be a traveling consultant. I guess I still am in a way.
I spend most of my annual vacation in Wisconsin and fly up there several weekends a year up there as well for various events, my extended family is predominantly located in Wisconsin. I live in Dallas, Texas. However now I work remotely for a firm in Kansas City. So at this point in time every third or fourth week I am working in downtown Kansas City for a week at a time.
Spending a lot of free time at KC Union Station and seeing a lot of BNSF and UP because there are some good restaurant eating there. They still have the mint condition yellow and gray paint Milwaukee RIVER series sleeper there but saw some kids climbing in and out of the vestibule about two weeks ago and walking on the roof......which I hope it is secured by KC Union Station but who knows.
CMStPnP CP has run off a lot of small customers in Wisconsin but I think that started before EHH arrived, he just accelerated it. CN on the other hand is working with the State and local communities to see how it can be of better service and perhaps capture more traffic. CP has not taken that step yet. UP seems to have a decent marketing force still......currently only UP and BNSF are the two being really aggressive at landing new bulk business in Wisconsin. CP is absent for the most part and CN seems to be just responding to negative publicity about lines it may want to abandon but it has not filed yet. Still amongst them all, CP is still doing the least. At least that is my perception reading the news and seeing who is getting the rail traffic in Wisconsin.
CP has run off a lot of small customers in Wisconsin but I think that started before EHH arrived, he just accelerated it. CN on the other hand is working with the State and local communities to see how it can be of better service and perhaps capture more traffic. CP has not taken that step yet. UP seems to have a decent marketing force still......currently only UP and BNSF are the two being really aggressive at landing new bulk business in Wisconsin. CP is absent for the most part and CN seems to be just responding to negative publicity about lines it may want to abandon but it has not filed yet. Still amongst them all, CP is still doing the least. At least that is my perception reading the news and seeing who is getting the rail traffic in Wisconsin.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
schlimm Paul_D_North_Jr 1) I've said it before, and I'll say it again: EHH gets too much credit for improvements at CN. His were marginal - most occurred before he showed up. I know, I've owned the stock since right after Paul Tellier took it public (from a Crown Corporation), still do, and plan on continuing. Paul Tellier seems to receive much praise for being CEO of CNR before EHH. Given the distaste on here for government and bureaucrats, it strikes me as odd that prior to going to CNR in 1993, he was Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet of the Government of Canada, i.e., a career government bureaucrat!!
Paul_D_North_Jr 1) I've said it before, and I'll say it again: EHH gets too much credit for improvements at CN. His were marginal - most occurred before he showed up. I know, I've owned the stock since right after Paul Tellier took it public (from a Crown Corporation), still do, and plan on continuing.
Paul Tellier seems to receive much praise for being CEO of CNR before EHH. Given the distaste on here for government and bureaucrats, it strikes me as odd that prior to going to CNR in 1993, he was Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet of the Government of Canada, i.e., a career government bureaucrat!!
Good and bad people everywhere.. some government people are quite capable and hard working just as some "entrepreneurs" need to be supervised.
schlimm SALfan Perhaps spinning off the redundancies will be seen soon.
SALfan
Perhaps spinning off the redundancies will be seen soon.
The 'redundancies' all have their own traffic sources and customer base. The lines that don't have traffic sources where shed in the 80's & 90's during the plant rationalization - either abandoned or spun off into short lines. Without alternative routings in the company a single derailment can shut down an entire service lane without recourse....of course if your desire is to run off customers anything is possible.
SALfanCSX has a network that someone once described as "looking like a bowl full of cooked spaghetti", with multiple ways to get between endpoints and business widely distributed over that network. I know nothing about running a railroad, but it has to be easier to run a linear railroad like those he has run than a spiderweb-type system like CSX.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
After the dust settles, do not be surprised to see CSX and CPac married, and EHH at the helm. "Two ways to skin a cat", and the non-compete clause was just a smokescreen.
Vancouver, Chicago, & Eastern.
I for one will have to see the results before applauding Mr. Harrison. His history does not bode well for customer or labor relations. And in CSX, he will be dealing with quite a different animal than at IC, CN or CP. All of those are relatively linear systems - several far-flung endpoints and usually one or two ways to get between them; perfect for his operating habits. On the other hand, CSX has a network that someone once described as "looking like a bowl full of cooked spaghetti", with multiple ways to get between endpoints and business widely distributed over that network. I know nothing about running a railroad, but it has to be easier to run a linear railroad like those he has run than a spiderweb-type system like CSX. Time will tell.
TO JEFF HERGERT [March 10, 2017] AND ALL:
Perusing through the posts of this thread it was noted that your thoughts seemed to be more aware of reality that many. Tell me if this hits a bell … Everyone tries to maximize their gains. E. Hunter Harrison is no different, it is just that who he works for (read stockholders) is more influential than, say, a railroad shipping customer. Thus, Harrison maximizes profits, and that maximizing doesn’t allow for others to maximize theirs. Hence, shipping customers are often unhappy. It is an age old situation, a situation that induces violence and discontent in the world.
If everyone understood people’s right to be on a sliding stick (picture something like a slide rule math instrument), for example, they would focus on the overall benefit to everyone on that sliding stick. But, if one wants to maximize their position on the sliding slick to the exclusion of others, well that will cause war. EHH is one that maximizes in a very, very focused way, and the results are not surprising. If, on the other hand, if the focus was on everybody’s right to make money, that sliding stick would eventually move to the maximizing position for a while and everyone would benefit and there would be peace.
It is unlikely that Harrison at CSX will think of others on the sliding stick. He is paid not to. But, that “old” guy’s time left is running out. What will investors do if he drops dead tomorrow?
Myself, I think Harrison has the right concept with “precision railroading.” It is just that precision railroading has to be done with a sliding stick in mind, i.e., others have to benefit too, or eventually nobody will.
schlimm Paul_D_North_Jr 1) I've said it before, and I'll say it again: EHH gets too much credit for improvements at CN. His were marginal - most occurred before he showed up. I know, I've owned the stock since right after Paul Tellier took it public (from a Crown Corporation), still do, and plan on continuing.
Yes the left never got over that one. It's their weak spot...no fun, ever. Fun is officially approved and sanctioned only. Loopy.
I'd suggest people's like or dislike of government officials and agencies, or politicians for that matter, hinges on what value they percieve they're getting for their tax money.
Take the armed forces for example. Very few people dislike the military in this country because they believe they're getting their money's worth out of them. Other government functions not so much, at least not that they can see.
I'll tell you one thing, I sensed a change in people's attitude toward the EPA thirty years ago. Don't laugh, but remember that movie "Ghostbusters?" Who was the "bad guy" jerk in the film? The New York City cops? The mayor? Nope, it was the EPA guy played by William Atherton. Made me wonder.
gwyn68 ERR wrong there as regards UK,we dont like or trust most politicians! or civil servants. They are usualy in their own little Whitehall bubble,they are mostly out of touch with Jo public,hence the surprise over the Brexit result. Don,
ERR wrong there as regards UK,we dont like or trust most politicians! or civil servants.
They are usualy in their own little Whitehall bubble,they are mostly out of touch with Jo public,hence the surprise over the Brexit result.
Don,
Paul_D_North_Jr1) I've said it before, and I'll say it again: EHH gets too much credit for improvements at CN. His were marginal - most occurred before he showed up. I know, I've owned the stock since right after Paul Tellier took it public (from a Crown Corporation), still do, and plan on continuing.
One thing we are all in agreement on is 1) EHH will enact some radical changes and it will not be the same old same old at CSX 2) we will probably see the final rounds of mergers, which actually is pretty exciting to watch as the end games are played out on the chessboard.
Ulrich why would CSX be any different?
why would CSX be any different?
The buisness prospects for railroads in general were brighter in years past than they are at present. "Slash and Burn" might have more relevance now than it did in the goot olde days.
Two things:
1) I've said it before, and I'll say it again: EHH gets too much credit for improvements at CN. His were marginal - most occurred before he showed up. I know, I've owned the stock since right after Paul Tellier took it public (from a Crown Corporation), still do, and plan on continuing. (A couple weeks ago I sold off all my 'bubbled' CSX and doubled down on CN, but that's another story.)
2) EHH appears to be 'channeling' John Kneiling on 3 (only) of his 7 precision railroading service-design principles: Minimize car dwell time in yards, minimize car classifications, and minimize power requirements. On most of the others, JGK never expressed an opinion, as far as I know.
On unit trains, John would have disagreed with EHH on 2 of his 3 points - the same O-D pair and and the 7 days a week (they kind of agree on the less than 24 hours to load/ unload - except John would have wanted ~1 hour). Also, on cancelling trains on low-volume weekends and other moves to discourage what EHH views as low margin traffic: John would run any train that makes money above its variable cost in the situation then presented (including what seems like surplus locomotives, track, etc., unless they're worth more being sold or scrapped). Otherwise, I'd go with Kneiling on any differences.
- PDN.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR Ulrich CN and CP turned out fine after EHH's tenure there.. why would CSX be any different? I don't understand the dislike for this man. First off, neither carrier really turned out fine until after new management had a chance to repair the damage to customer service and employee morale after EHH left, as a matter of fact, CP is still trying to fix those issues. CN has had plenty of time to right the ship since EHH left, so they're in a much better position today than when he first left. Instead of just going by what EHH says perhaps you should listen to railroaders and shippers, not to investors and hedge funds(neither of which know a damn thing about how to run a railroad, but certainly know how to make a cash grab).
Ulrich CN and CP turned out fine after EHH's tenure there.. why would CSX be any different? I don't understand the dislike for this man.
CN and CP turned out fine after EHH's tenure there.. why would CSX be any different? I don't understand the dislike for this man.
First off, neither carrier really turned out fine until after new management had a chance to repair the damage to customer service and employee morale after EHH left, as a matter of fact, CP is still trying to fix those issues. CN has had plenty of time to right the ship since EHH left, so they're in a much better position today than when he first left. Instead of just going by what EHH says perhaps you should listen to railroaders and shippers, not to investors and hedge funds(neither of which know a damn thing about how to run a railroad, but certainly know how to make a cash grab).
He hasn't really said anything to me. I go by what I read and see. The numbers (financial, sales and safety) don't lie. Sure, its not perfect, but CN and CP are far better companies today than they were 20 years ago. I don't know EHH personally, but I wouldn't disparage him based on what I've seen.
Convicted OneSomeone should pass a law right now that specifies that CSX may not be considered "too big to fail" for at least 10 years after Mr Harrison et.al. conclude their little looting expedition. No need to hang the taxpayers for what these folks have in store.
My guess is Mantle Ridge will go belly up before CSX. Where is 'The Childrens Fund' these days?
Convicted One Someone should pass a law right now that specifies that CSX may not be considered "too big to fail" for at least 10 years after Mr Harrison et.al. conclude their little looting expedition. No need to hang the taxpayers for what these folks have in store.
Someone should pass a law right now that specifies that CSX may not be considered "too big to fail" for at least 10 years after Mr Harrison et.al. conclude their little looting expedition. No need to hang the taxpayers for what these folks have in store.
What has really helped CN is that EHH then moved to CP. CN's new team was aware that EHH often upset customers (their needs got in the way of "operating a precision railroad") and CN has been able to get more than a few to change. This does not happen instantly, since sometimes contracts have to expire. And of course many shippers are captive and don't have the luxury of choice.
CP is still apparently fine but loss of volume leads to long term problems in a capital intensive industry. EHH has only just left; it is too early to say how positive his legacy will be. There may be cracks growing behind the wallpaper!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.