EuclidI do not know whether Harrison’s accusation is true, but I think he made a big mistake by not explaining who he was referring to and what they did.
His mistake is thinking he knew more about running CSX from his experiences at CP, CN and IC and without taking any time to learn what made CSX operate, back when it WAS OPERATING. The situation CSX is in now PREVENTS any understanding of the operation.
When you caught only a glimpse of
and you transformed it into
it is difficult to figure out what is necessary to get back to the original and improve upon it.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I do not know whether Harrison’s accusation is true, but I think he made a big mistake by not explaining who he was referring to and what they did.
Euclid Harrison did not say who he was referring to when he accused them of pushing back and resisting change. But it was the union who responded as though it was their members who Harrison was referring to. So what employees would that include?
Harrison did not say who he was referring to when he accused them of pushing back and resisting change. But it was the union who responded as though it was their members who Harrison was referring to. So what employees would that include?
We don't know, since Harrison did not specify. He himself probably doesn't "know" but since the railroad is a mess it must be someone other than Himself.
Since Harrison was so imprecise, the unions felt it necessary to redirect the blame back up the chain of command where it properly belongs. Too many people would automatically interpret Harrison's reference to be towards the lowest ranks, and that was probably intentional. (If he actually believes it; if so he is delusional.)
Euclid cx500 As others have pointed out, the resistance to change does not come from the lower ranks, since they are required to do what they are told. There will be some inertia from the middle managers, but often their problem is that EHH waved his magic wand and told them the results he wants without giving them time and resources to develop a new plan to achieve them. In fact, those middle managers rarely have much in the way of real authority that would enable them to make the changes they are accused of resisting. Harrison did not say who he was referring to when he accused them of pushing back and resisting change. But it was the union who responded as though it was their members who Harrison was referring to. So what employees would that include?
cx500 As others have pointed out, the resistance to change does not come from the lower ranks, since they are required to do what they are told. There will be some inertia from the middle managers, but often their problem is that EHH waved his magic wand and told them the results he wants without giving them time and resources to develop a new plan to achieve them. In fact, those middle managers rarely have much in the way of real authority that would enable them to make the changes they are accused of resisting.
Any and Every body except EHH. Only EHH does everything right. Legend in his own mind.
cx500As others have pointed out, the resistance to change does not come from the lower ranks, since they are required to do what they are told. There will be some inertia from the middle managers, but often their problem is that EHH waved his magic wand and told them the results he wants without giving them time and resources to develop a new plan to achieve them. In fact, those middle managers rarely have much in the way of real authority that would enable them to make the changes they are accused of resisting.
Flat switching is slower than Humping.
Closing Hump yards is false economy - you save the costs directly associated with hump, however you increase dwell as the same number of switches have to be performed, however at a slower rate and car hire is calculated on a hourly basis. If 1000 cars were moved through a Hump yard on a daily basis and now those same 1000 cars move through the same location without the hump in two days, where is the savings. Secondly, if tomorrow's 1000 cars arrive before today's 1000 cars have been switched and dispatched there is no place for tomorrow's cars in the yard, so those cars get held out and occupy Main Track space - Main Track space that all the other trains that operate through the former Hump Yard location must be navigated around (remember the track blocks where trains get held are larger than the size of a individual train and the holding location may be dictated by the existance of highway crossings at grade that can affect holding multiple trains in that track segment) Holding trains creates the further problem, do you keep the crew on the train while it is being held - if you do, there 12 hour clock is running and will expire; if you don't the train won't move until another crew is secured and placed on the train. The crew that was originally on the train won't be available to be put on another train until 12 hours after their tie up time. The power that is on the held out train is not available to dispatch outbound trains until the power actually arrives the terminal. While you can, if you desire, pull the power from the head out held train, the power on trains behind the lead train are trapped until the lead held train is moved. If power is removed from the lead held out train, power and a crew will have to be secured to move the lead held out train when the terminal has space for it. Start holding trains from each direction out of the terminal and it doesn't take long to end up with 30-40-50 miles or more of single tracking through the terminal.
EHH has taken a K Mart watch that was working and keeping time - ripped out a number of the gears that have made the watch work and now wonders why it doesn't work and keep time.
Trying hard to see as Paul Harvey would descibe it as "The rest of the story'.
Harrison is on a mission to benefit Paul Hilal's mission of increasing the value of CSX stock abd the rewards offered him are far above the compensation offered many Ceo's. His demands for the $84 million regardless of his success are beyond the palle. The man has gonads to think he is that valuable to any corporation.. IMO, he is on an ego trip.
CSX will suffer becaus of him. The rank and file who keep the railroad fluid on a day to day basis are only following orders.
Norm
As others have pointed out, the resistance to change does not come from the lower ranks, since they are required to do what they are told. There will be some inertia from the middle managers, but often their problem is that EHH waved his magic wand and told them the results he wants without giving them time and resources to develop a new plan to achieve them. In fact, those middle managers rarely have much in the way of real authority that would enable them to make the changes they are accused of resisting.
On CP the Alyth hump was closed, and now the yard sees a lot of block swapping between trains. But those blocks need to be created somewhere, which meant yards at intermediate terminals now had to do a lot more train marshalling, often in a yard that needed upgrading to handle the increased workload after years of minimal maintenance. A track layout little changed from the steam era and short trains usually needs substantial rebuilding at the throats if it is to operate efficiently. It all takes forethought, time and money, if the change is to take place smoothly, but instead EHH expects it to be done instantly. When the desired miracle does not occur, somebody must be found to take the blame.
BaltACD When the plan is bad - the one that formed the plan always blame those that are trying to make the plan work. EHH cannot accept responsibility for his own failures. Employees want to do their job and want to do that job safely. They want to go from A to Z as quickly as conditions permit. They want to switch X track correctly and as quickly as conditions will permit. When the plan make those conditions slower or impossible to overcome who is responsible for the plan.
Employees want to do their job and want to do that job safely. They want to go from A to Z as quickly as conditions permit. They want to switch X track correctly and as quickly as conditions will permit. When the plan make those conditions slower or impossible to overcome who is responsible for the plan.
That is one of two possibilities. The other possibility is that when the plan goes against someone else’s self- interest, that person seeks to discredit the plan in any way possible. If that person is the one who executes the plan, it is easy for that person to do so in bad faith with the objective of causing damage that can then be blamed on the plan itself, in order to create the illusion that the plan is bad.
So, being that there are these two possible and conflicting explanations for what is described in the article, I would not assume either one is correct unless it were shown to be so.
BaltACD Euclid What EHH seems to be saying is that union personnel have been dragging their feet with train operations in order to gum things up and making it look like EEH’s plan is failing; all for the spiteful purpose of getting even with EEH for cutting labor and downsizing the plant. When the union says they can’t take responsibility for the problem because they had no input on the plan, it does not exactly sound like the kind of rebuttal I would expect from being accused of intentionally causing disruptions. So I am looking for an explanation of exactly what did happen in the way of disruptions and why EHH says the union members caused them. When the plan is bad - the one that formed the plan always blame those that are trying to make the plan work. EHH cannot accept responsibility for his own failures. Employees want to do their job and want to do that job safely. They want to go from A to Z as quickly as conditions permit. They want to switch X track correctly and as quickly as conditions will permit. When the plan make those conditions slower or impossible to overcome who is responsible for the plan.
Euclid What EHH seems to be saying is that union personnel have been dragging their feet with train operations in order to gum things up and making it look like EEH’s plan is failing; all for the spiteful purpose of getting even with EEH for cutting labor and downsizing the plant. When the union says they can’t take responsibility for the problem because they had no input on the plan, it does not exactly sound like the kind of rebuttal I would expect from being accused of intentionally causing disruptions. So I am looking for an explanation of exactly what did happen in the way of disruptions and why EHH says the union members caused them.
When the union says they can’t take responsibility for the problem because they had no input on the plan, it does not exactly sound like the kind of rebuttal I would expect from being accused of intentionally causing disruptions.
So I am looking for an explanation of exactly what did happen in the way of disruptions and why EHH says the union members caused them.
When the plan is bad - the one that formed the plan always blame those that are trying to make the plan work. EHH cannot accept responsibility for his own failures.
Well I hope that is true. But one has to be naive or ignorant of history to not know that industrial-labor relations in the US have a long, contentious and bloody history. Folks naturally want to hold on to what they have. And some will try to take that away, in the name of bigger profits, while others will try to gum up the works to stop that from costing them jobs and/or pay. None of us know (or are saying) what the truth is with EHH and at CSX.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm It's all speculation at this point. It might be an irrational plan by EHH or it could be sabotage by workers' feeling threatened (there's a long history of that since the early days of the Industrial Revolution in the 19th C.). Both explanations are possible, even plausible, but we may never know the answer.
It's all speculation at this point. It might be an irrational plan by EHH or it could be sabotage by workers' feeling threatened (there's a long history of that since the early days of the Industrial Revolution in the 19th C.). Both explanations are possible, even plausible, but we may never know the answer.
EuclidWhat EHH seems to be saying is that union personnel have been dragging their feet with train operations in order to gum things up and making it look like EEH’s plan is failing; all for the spiteful purpose of getting even with EEH for cutting labor and downsizing the plant. When the union says they can’t take responsibility for the problem because they had no input on the plan, it does not exactly sound like the kind of rebuttal I would expect from being accused of intentionally causing disruptions. So I am looking for an explanation of exactly what did happen in the way of disruptions and why EHH says the union members caused them.
What EHH seems to be saying is that union personnel have been dragging their feet with train operations in order to gum things up and making it look like EEH’s plan is failing; all for the spiteful purpose of getting even with EEH for cutting labor and downsizing the plant.
Euclid SD70M-2Dude Euclid BaltACD SMART replies to Harrison http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/freight/class-i/csx-union-rips-harrison-apology.html What exactly are Harrison and SMART talking about in this exchange? The union says they refuse to accept responsibility for the disruptions. I would like to know whether they had nothing to do with the disruptions –or- whether they caused the disruptions, but feel justified because they were not allowed to have input on operational changes. I have bolded the correct answer. What the Union is saying is that the person/group who created/initiated a change should be held responsible for the consequences of that change. EHH is probably also referring to certain low or mid-level managers in addition to unionized employees, but a classic from his past playbook at CN and CP is to ignore sections of collective agreements (a binding legal document signed by both sides) that he does not like. Anyone who points this out and/or grieves a violation of the agreement will most likely be viewed by EHH as 'resisting' him. But the real underlying reason is that he is trying to shift blame for the service failures to someone else. Here is what I would like to know: What exactly were the service disruptions and how were they caused? Obviously both SMART and EHH know the answer to that question, so why do they not explain it for us since it is a critical part of the story that has been made public?
SD70M-2Dude Euclid BaltACD SMART replies to Harrison http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/freight/class-i/csx-union-rips-harrison-apology.html What exactly are Harrison and SMART talking about in this exchange? The union says they refuse to accept responsibility for the disruptions. I would like to know whether they had nothing to do with the disruptions –or- whether they caused the disruptions, but feel justified because they were not allowed to have input on operational changes. I have bolded the correct answer. What the Union is saying is that the person/group who created/initiated a change should be held responsible for the consequences of that change. EHH is probably also referring to certain low or mid-level managers in addition to unionized employees, but a classic from his past playbook at CN and CP is to ignore sections of collective agreements (a binding legal document signed by both sides) that he does not like. Anyone who points this out and/or grieves a violation of the agreement will most likely be viewed by EHH as 'resisting' him. But the real underlying reason is that he is trying to shift blame for the service failures to someone else.
Euclid BaltACD SMART replies to Harrison http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/freight/class-i/csx-union-rips-harrison-apology.html What exactly are Harrison and SMART talking about in this exchange? The union says they refuse to accept responsibility for the disruptions. I would like to know whether they had nothing to do with the disruptions –or- whether they caused the disruptions, but feel justified because they were not allowed to have input on operational changes.
BaltACD SMART replies to Harrison http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/freight/class-i/csx-union-rips-harrison-apology.html
SMART replies to Harrison
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/freight/class-i/csx-union-rips-harrison-apology.html
What exactly are Harrison and SMART talking about in this exchange? The union says they refuse to accept responsibility for the disruptions. I would like to know whether they had nothing to do with the disruptions –or- whether they caused the disruptions, but feel justified because they were not allowed to have input on operational changes.
I have bolded the correct answer. What the Union is saying is that the person/group who created/initiated a change should be held responsible for the consequences of that change.
EHH is probably also referring to certain low or mid-level managers in addition to unionized employees, but a classic from his past playbook at CN and CP is to ignore sections of collective agreements (a binding legal document signed by both sides) that he does not like. Anyone who points this out and/or grieves a violation of the agreement will most likely be viewed by EHH as 'resisting' him.
But the real underlying reason is that he is trying to shift blame for the service failures to someone else.
Here is what I would like to know:
What exactly were the service disruptions and how were they caused?
Obviously both SMART and EHH know the answer to that question, so why do they not explain it for us since it is a critical part of the story that has been made public?
The metrics of cars on line and terminal dwell and reduced train speeds tell it all.
Close most of the most efficient car sorting centers (hump yards) and cars don't get sorted at the same speed as before. Change the operating plan to haul cars hundreds of miles out of route to get to the remaining sorting centers to be sorted into trains for their destination.
Once you do the previous paragraph's two actions things begin to snowball and the disruptions continue to get worse over time.
SMART did not close the Hump Yards, SMART does not design the Operating Plan. SMART employees do as they are instructed by Management. A failed Operating Plan is Managements baby.
Over my employed years I saw many Management's turn fluid operations into a constipated mess - both on local areas and on the system as a whole. For the most part Management would never admit their mistakes until they were replaced and a different Management was put in place and changes were made in the Operating Plan.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
I have added the bold emphasis in this from the article linked above.
If it is the latter, then is this what EHH is referring to when he says a few have pushed back and continue to do so?
"The pace of change at CSX has been extremely rapid," Harrison wrote August 1 in a letter of apology to customers, "and while most people at the company have embraced the new plan, unfortunately, a few have pushed back and continue to do so. This resistance to change has resulted in some service disruptions."
In an August 3 letter to Harrison obtained by Railway Age, SMART, the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers, which represents CSX operating employees, wrote, “The Organization refuses to accept responsibility for disruptions that negatively affect the customers when we have no input on operational changes. We receive minimal, and in most cases, no communication from any department about the significant changes being implemented almost daily.”
schlimmit would be the height of hilarious irony to read the gleeful postings of folks so opposed to regulations and the government welcoming a DSO from the STB.
Further irony with Schumer, Booker et al. cutting off their noses to spite their faces by keeping Batory from confirmation ... because they want to keep Gateway financing prioritized. As if a Trump administration wouldn't prioritize train service to Manhattan!
schlimm"Hatred trumps ideology?"
Frankly, after reading Fred Frailey's "CSX Follies" I was left with the strong impression that EHH and our President have very similar leadership/operational styles and seem headed for similar, predictable results.
Paul_D_North_Jr BaltACD . . . CSX rules currently state that a train that leaves on two track occupancy circuits (and they need not be consecutive) is to make a controlled stop and inspect their train for a possible broken wheel. . . . Meaning "leaves 'On' two Track Occupancy Lights (TOLs) ? The theory being that each TOL that's On' might indicate a broken rail, which could be caused an 'open' or incompete circuit and hence the TOL to be On ? - PDN.
BaltACD . . . CSX rules currently state that a train that leaves on two track occupancy circuits (and they need not be consecutive) is to make a controlled stop and inspect their train for a possible broken wheel. . . .
Meaning "leaves 'On' two Track Occupancy Lights (TOLs) ? The theory being that each TOL that's On' might indicate a broken rail, which could be caused an 'open' or incompete circuit and hence the TOL to be On ?
- PDN.
My experience was that about 90% of the track circuits that were left on behind trains were found to be either broken rails or pull-a-parts. Thus a 'individual train' that leaves on two (or more) track circuits behind it MAY have some wheel defect that is causing track defects that are affecting signals.
We did have one train that did have a broken wheel, in cold weather, that broke rail at six different locations within the limits of a single track circuit.
If what were happening to CSX were not so sadly tragic, it would be the height of hilarious irony to read the gleeful postings of folks so opposed to regulations and the government welcoming a DSO from the STB.
"Hatred trumps ideology?"
blue streak 1 had a southbound on the A&WP sub south of Atlanta that had three cars with very noticible flat spots. Will that rapidly cause rail to go bad ?
had a southbound on the A&WP sub south of Atlanta that had three cars with very noticible flat spots. Will that rapidly cause rail to go bad ?
A rule of thumb I've heard is if you can hear the flat spot seven cars away - it's significant... Of course, there are specific rules.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
blue streak 1had a southbound on the A&WP sub south of Atlanta that had three cars with very noticible flat spots. Will that rapidly cause rail to go bad ?
With current summertime temperatures flat spots, while not helping rail longevity, are generally not catastrophic for rail. When the temperature gets well below freezing it is another story. The edge of the flat spots can act like a chisel when impacting the top of the rail and potentiall set a 'break mark' that under continued stresses can result in a broken rail. Warm rail has more resiliance to impacts than does very cold rail.
CSX rules currently state that a train that leaves on two track occupancy circuits (and they need not be consecutive) is to make a controlled stop and inspect their train for a possible broken wheel.
Paul_D_North_JrGo look at the Railroad Performance Measures webpage for CSX: http://www.railroadpm.org/home/RPM/Performance%20Reports/CSX.aspx Without breaking out the calculator, here's what I see: Total Cars On-Line up about 4% in the last month, and from 3Q16. Train Speed down across the board, except Grain Unit - and Multilevel no longer reported. For All Trains, from 20.8 MPH in 3Q16 and 21.5 in June steadily down to 19.2 MPH for the w/e 7/21. From 3Q16, that's an 8% decrease in speed. Terminal Dwell for Entire Railroad up from 25.7 hrs. in 3Q16 to 28.0 last week = up about 9%. All this may look like "Precision Scheduled Railroading" to EHH, but not to me. These metrics are all headed in the wrong direction, by significant amounts, and for several weeks in a row. The 3Q results will be telling, but best compared year-over-year since there are 2 holiday weeks in the 3Q, but only 1 in the 2Q. - PDN.
http://www.railroadpm.org/home/RPM/Performance%20Reports/CSX.aspx
Without breaking out the calculator, here's what I see:
Total Cars On-Line up about 4% in the last month, and from 3Q16.
Train Speed down across the board, except Grain Unit - and Multilevel no longer reported. For All Trains, from 20.8 MPH in 3Q16 and 21.5 in June steadily down to 19.2 MPH for the w/e 7/21. From 3Q16, that's an 8% decrease in speed.
Terminal Dwell for Entire Railroad up from 25.7 hrs. in 3Q16 to 28.0 last week = up about 9%.
All this may look like "Precision Scheduled Railroading" to EHH, but not to me. These metrics are all headed in the wrong direction, by significant amounts, and for several weeks in a row. The 3Q results will be telling, but best compared year-over-year since there are 2 holiday weeks in the 3Q, but only 1 in the 2Q.
Cars On Line - 218,057, up about 1.0% (215,869)
Train Speed (MPH) - 18.7, down from 19.2 (-2.6%)
Terminal Dwell (Hrs.) - 29.3 Hrs., up from 28.0 (+4.6%)
As I said a week ago above: These metrics are all headed in the wrong direction, by significant amounts, and for several weeks in a row.
Maybe he gets joy and fulfillment from being a one-man wrecking ball that nobody can stop.
MiningmanSd70M-2 Dude- " To put it mildly I hope that whatever he has is painful. And karma's got a long way to go yet. And I will shortly be joining the line to dance (among other things) on his grave." I would not go that far...he has a beautiful multi million dollar horse farm...why not pack it in and enjoy life. Donate 2 or 3 million to the T1 fund and smile. That would be a reasonable and fine outcome.
And I will shortly be joining the line to dance (among other things) on his grave."
I would not go that far...he has a beautiful multi million dollar horse farm...why not pack it in and enjoy life. Donate 2 or 3 million to the T1 fund and smile. That would be a reasonable and fine outcome.
He doesn't understand the concept of happiness only $$$
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.