EuclidI see. Other than being rather consistent for two months, what does the data actually indicate about the state of the network, and how does that reflect on Harrison's management?
This thread has now officially gone the full circle.
One of the original (if not the original) posts by Don in this thread will answer that question:
Just checked CSX numbers (from STB web site). Compared to a month ago, train speed down 0.3 mph. Dwell flat. Cars on Line up 2000. What does this mean? The numbers are the "voice of the process". That the numbers have been virtually flat for about two months now means that what you see is what you get. They are no better than a year ago, pre-EHH. Absent any new initiatives to get things moving, i.e. more locomotives, crews etc., this is what CSX under EHH will look like.
What does this mean? The numbers are the "voice of the process". That the numbers have been virtually flat for about two months now means that what you see is what you get. They are no better than a year ago, pre-EHH.
Absent any new initiatives to get things moving, i.e. more locomotives, crews etc., this is what CSX under EHH will look like.
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...
tree68 Euclid I see. Other than being rather consistent for two months, what does the data actually indicate about the state of the network, and how does that reflect on Harrison's management? This thread has now officially gone the full circle. One of the original (if not the original) posts by Don in this thread will answer that question: Just checked CSX numbers (from STB web site). Compared to a month ago, train speed down 0.3 mph. Dwell flat. Cars on Line up 2000. What does this mean? The numbers are the "voice of the process". That the numbers have been virtually flat for about two months now means that what you see is what you get. They are no better than a year ago, pre-EHH. Absent any new initiatives to get things moving, i.e. more locomotives, crews etc., this is what CSX under EHH will look like.
Euclid I see. Other than being rather consistent for two months, what does the data actually indicate about the state of the network, and how does that reflect on Harrison's management?
No, it has not gone full circle, as you say. Don's original post posed the queston, "What does this mean?" He answered that it meant the numbers were flat, or un-changing.
Above, I have asked an entirely different question. That is this: "What does this data acually tell us in terms of system performance?" Does the fact that the data is flat mean that system performance is poor? By "system performance," I mean the profitability or financial business success.
You can say your speedometer reading is "flat" no matter whether you are going down the road at 60 mph or you are standing still. Yet there is a big difference in performance.
Numbers being flat says nothing about the financial performance of the business. And since we are always talking about the effect of EHH running CSX into the ground, I assume that means ruining the business in terms of financial performance.
I see. Other than being rather consistent for two months, what does the data actually indicate about the state of the network, and how does that reflect on Harrison's management?
We (or at least some of us) have seen a massive outcry from shippers about how service quality collapsed, and that those problems continue. It is not only the shippers, since the problems backed onto interchange partners. The sheer quantity of anecdotal reports cannot be entirely ignored either.
If the official numbers remain unchanged, and the complaints continue, it would appear that the two could be related. Harrison is the person in charge and is expected to be make the railroad better than before he arrived. If that has not happened, and the lack of improvement is continuing, to any knowledgeable observer it certainly reflects on Harrison's management.
Pre-HH, inbound trains would leave their cars in Receiving yard and would be humped into the Class yard and a bowl job would pull and shove them into the Departure yard For outbound trains.
Post-HH, inbound trains leave their cars in the Departure yard where a bowl job kicks them into the Class yard. A Hump job then doubles, triples, quadruples, etc the train out and pulls it over the hump and down into the Receiving yard for departure.
Granted, money had to be spent to completely redesign the south end of the Receiving yard and install ground ait for the brare tests, something that the departure yard already had because you know, it was built for departing trains?
Also,
Early HH- Gotta move trains, cut the remotes off and put an engineer on them because they can move cars faster this way (Which is true).
Current HH- Cut the engineers off and put remotes back in, gotta sacrifice moving cars to get my numbers up. Good luck moving and switching the same amount without that engineer.
I vote "full circle".
1. The measures are the voice of the process.
2. They are steady - this means the process is stable.
3. They are not any better than before EHH showed up.
4. The STB numbers (train speed and terminal dwell) are a decent, statistially valid proxy for network car velocity (I know for a fact they are at NS and CSX's network is similar.)
5. If you do tomorrow, what you've been doing for the past 10 weeks, absent magic, nothing different will happen.
Conclusion: There isn't much reason to think CSX is going to get much better than they are right now, if they do something different.
You COULD make an agurment that improved execution of the plan could improve numbers, but I've not heard anything from CSX's statements to think this is likely. The most likely outcome going forward is "what you see is what you'll get".
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Here's an example of a steady set of numbers when NS was running at a high level
http://www.nscorp.com/content/dam/nscorp/get-to-know-ns/investor-relations/performance-measures/monthly-performance-reports/2013_NS_Monthly_AAR_Performance.pdf
oltmannd Euclid oltmannd Just checked CSX numbers (from STB web site). Compared to a month ago, train speed down 0.3 mph. Dwell flat. Cars on Line up 2000. Don, I have a couple questions: Aside from whether the numbers are flat or not, what is the relative merit of the condition that they indicate? If those numbers were permanently locked at their current values, how much could the business performance fluctuate between good and bad? If being flat numbers is bad, what would be happening with the numbers if the situation was good? The numbers are decent indicators of the state of the network. Obviously, you can't manage by these measures. Nothing in them is actionable. But, internally, there are drill-downs and other measures that can point to specific problem areas. For example, a location with high dwell might suffer from a bad plan (not likely), too much traffic, too much traffic as specific times of day, insufficient resources, or poor management - or a combination. How far down you can drill into the data to get close to the root cause of the trouble depends on the number and skill of the folk you have to do the analysis and the richness and ease of use of the data you keep.
Euclid oltmannd Just checked CSX numbers (from STB web site). Compared to a month ago, train speed down 0.3 mph. Dwell flat. Cars on Line up 2000. Don, I have a couple questions: Aside from whether the numbers are flat or not, what is the relative merit of the condition that they indicate? If those numbers were permanently locked at their current values, how much could the business performance fluctuate between good and bad? If being flat numbers is bad, what would be happening with the numbers if the situation was good?
oltmannd Just checked CSX numbers (from STB web site). Compared to a month ago, train speed down 0.3 mph. Dwell flat. Cars on Line up 2000.
Don, I have a couple questions:
Aside from whether the numbers are flat or not, what is the relative merit of the condition that they indicate?
If those numbers were permanently locked at their current values, how much could the business performance fluctuate between good and bad?
If being flat numbers is bad, what would be happening with the numbers if the situation was good?
The numbers are decent indicators of the state of the network. Obviously, you can't manage by these measures. Nothing in them is actionable. But, internally, there are drill-downs and other measures that can point to specific problem areas.
For example, a location with high dwell might suffer from a bad plan (not likely), too much traffic, too much traffic as specific times of day, insufficient resources, or poor management - or a combination.
How far down you can drill into the data to get close to the root cause of the trouble depends on the number and skill of the folk you have to do the analysis and the richness and ease of use of the data you keep.
Don,
Let's back up to an earlier answer you gave to one of my questions. Basically I asked you how you conclude that stable numbers are bad and therefore show that Harrision is doing a bad job.
In your answer above, I cannot see any clear conclusion. It is full of qualifers and relative terms such as depending on the richness and ease of use of the data. With your answer, it sounds like we are a long ways from knowing what the flat numbers mean. And yet you seem to say that we know the bad numbers are a reflection of a poor performance caused by Harrison.
Without knowing what the flat numbers actually indicate, how do we know they indicate trouble for the company? How do we know they indicate problems caused by Harrision?
Euclid oltmannd Euclid oltmannd Just checked CSX numbers (from STB web site). Compared to a month ago, train speed down 0.3 mph. Dwell flat. Cars on Line up 2000. Don, I have a couple questions: Aside from whether the numbers are flat or not, what is the relative merit of the condition that they indicate? If those numbers were permanently locked at their current values, how much could the business performance fluctuate between good and bad? If being flat numbers is bad, what would be happening with the numbers if the situation was good? The numbers are decent indicators of the state of the network. Obviously, you can't manage by these measures. Nothing in them is actionable. But, internally, there are drill-downs and other measures that can point to specific problem areas. For example, a location with high dwell might suffer from a bad plan (not likely), too much traffic, too much traffic as specific times of day, insufficient resources, or poor management - or a combination. How far down you can drill into the data to get close to the root cause of the trouble depends on the number and skill of the folk you have to do the analysis and the richness and ease of use of the data you keep. Don, Let's back up to an earlier answer you gave to one of my questions. Basically I asked you how you conclude that stable numbers are bad and therefore show that Harrision is doing a bad job. In your answer above, I cannot see any clear conclusion. It is full of qualifers and relative terms such as depending on the richness and ease of use of the data. With your answer, it sounds like we are a long ways from knowing what the flat numbers mean. And yet you seem to say that we know the bad numbers are a reflection of a poor performance caused by Harrison. Without knowing what the flat numbers actually indicate, how do we know they indicate trouble for the company? How do we know they indicate problems caused by Harrision?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Flat isn't bad. It's just that they are flat an not any improvment over the period before EHH. PSR is supposed to speed things up and allow assets to turn faster. I, and others have postulated that PSR is largely state of the art, and CSX and other have implemented the basics of it over the past 10-15 years.
If so, then EHH would have a hard time showing much improvement. That seems to be the case.
There is little EHH effect to be had because CSX was already doing their own flavor of PSR. All he's managed to do is tinker around the edges of the operating plan and do some cutting.
Another couple months and we'll know for sure.
Murphy SidingHow do we know blah blah blah if everything isn't exactly black and white blah blah blah. We don't know exactly, nor has anyone said we know exactly. So what we have here is opinion. Don has a railroad background. His opinion means something to me. You do not have a railroad background. You're opinion does not mean much to me.
It sounds like Don and I have the same opinion, so there is no need for you to choose one. We both think a little more time is needed to know for sure where things are headed with CSX.
Euclid Murphy Siding How do we know blah blah blah if everything isn't exactly black and white blah blah blah. We don't know exactly, nor has anyone said we know exactly. So what we have here is opinion. Don has a railroad background. His opinion means something to me. You do not have a railroad background. You're opinion does not mean much to me. It sounds like Don and I have the same opinion, so there is no need for you to choose one. We both think a little more time is needed to know for sure where things are headed with CSX.
Murphy Siding How do we know blah blah blah if everything isn't exactly black and white blah blah blah. We don't know exactly, nor has anyone said we know exactly. So what we have here is opinion. Don has a railroad background. His opinion means something to me. You do not have a railroad background. You're opinion does not mean much to me.
As Don said, flat isn't necessarily bad, but the numbers aren't any improvement and don't appear to be improving. But there is one significant difference from the time before EHH. Now there are a bunch of major customers (shippers) that have become frustrated with the railroad, and looking for alternative transportation routes.
Does this pose trouble for the company? All I know is that is that when I go shopping I tend to go to the merchants that give good service and make it a pleasant experience. Perhaps fortunately for CSX, that railroad is the only one available to many of the shippers, and the trucking industry does not have much spare capacity.
When it comes to financial performance - we all know that books can be and are cooked to show what 'management' wants shown all within the jurisdiction of 'generally accepted accounting principles'. If Mantle Ridge wants record profits shown to raise the stock price and raise dividends and permit it to hoover cash out of the company - if Mantle Ridge wants bad earnings reported for whatever reason, that can be done also.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
cx500As Don said, flat isn't necessarily bad, but the numbers aren't any improvement and don't appear to be improving.
+1
oltmannd cx500 As Don said, flat isn't necessarily bad, but the numbers aren't any improvement and don't appear to be improving. +1
cx500 As Don said, flat isn't necessarily bad, but the numbers aren't any improvement and don't appear to be improving.
I'd bet serious money on Don's interpretation. In fact, some of us already have changed our financial positions significantly, on expectations that this is what would ensue.
- PDN.
More flatness... Toyota Canada retracts their previous letter to the STB that CSX has improved their service.
https://www.stb.gov/filings/all.nsf/ba7f93537688b8e5852573210004b318/d5e236275b3d430a852581db005ba515/$FILE/244734.pdf
BC2 More flatness... Toyota Canada retracts their previous letter to the STB that CSX has improved their service. https://www.stb.gov/filings/all.nsf/ba7f93537688b8e5852573210004b318/d5e236275b3d430a852581db005ba515/$FILE/244734.pdf
That would seem to be more damming than just a complaint letter. For a Japaneese based company to retract a statement means some loss of face ?
So if their letter of 10/3 did not accurately reflect the facts, why did they send it? It appears to be a letter which a lot of thought has gone into. Or did it accurately reflect the facts on 10/3, but does not reflect the facts now? Or did some third party send the letter attributing it to Toyota?
Note that the first letter does not display a signature. Either it was left off the attachment intentionally, or the letter was never signed in the first place.
The answer to that question will likely provide necessary insight. If it was signed, I would opine that someone got their derriere chewed.
I got the impression that the letter may have been written by Toyota USA on behalf of Toyota Canada, without consulting the Canadian branch. But that is idle speculation, and only an insider would know for sure. But it might have been interesting to have been the "fly on the wall".
Yes, I see that the second letter does not even seem to be completed, as it stops mid-sentence. Yet, I see nothing in the first letter that describes the second letter as being just a partial quote. The existence of the contradicting twin letters seems a bit fishy. Maybe there will be a third letter that will retract the second letter and straighten this all out.
BaltACD Frozen
Frozen
Just "let it go"....
Likely their 'first' letter reflected a long-term customer experience with CSX, perhaps with a precursor management. It is only 'referenced for context' in the new letter, so only the first page appears; this is common enough I wouldn't think it would require comment, far less ontological cosmogony.
Their second letter is carefully avoiding any grounds for potential libel or perhaps interference-with-business-relationship action by CSX, saying only, essentially, 'details will be provided on request, to qualified requesters'. This too seems obvious enough not to require comment
OvermodI wouldn't think it would require comment, far less ontological cosmogony.
TO paraphrase Ms. Hood, "What big words you use grandma"
The first letter may reflect a long term relationship with CSX, but it is specifically responding to the STB’s request for comments about CSX “precision railroading” installed by Harrison. This first letter praises the changes made by CSC. The second letter appears to retract all the praise offered by the first letter. Which letter really reflects the position of Toyota?
Euclid Yes, I see that the second letter does not even seem to be completed, as it stops mid-sentence. Yet, I see nothing in the first letter that describes the second letter as being just a partial quote. The existence of the contradicting twin letters seems a bit fishy. Maybe there will be a third letter that will retract the second letter and straighten this all out.
All you have to do is google the source STB document.
https://www.stb.gov/filings/all.nsf/ba7f93537688b8e5852573210004b318/4da6a4a2cb908510852581af005e0bc4/$FILE/244456.pdf
The Oct 3rd letter was written by a consultant. The Nov 16th letter retracts what it said. That letter was by an actual Toyota Canada person.
Here's how it went down (maybe):
"The STB in the US wants some comments about CSX since you-know-who took over."
"Yeah, I know. I'm busy with this mess. Get Chris the consultant to write it."
"Okay." Email: to Chris the consultant. from Toyota Canada person. Hey, Chris. Can you write a quick letter to the STB telling them about all the fun we're having these days with CSX? Don't waste a lot of time on it. No need for a lot of details, just an overview. Thanks in advance.
Weeks later...
"Did you see what that consultant, Chris, wrote to the STB?"
...reads letter..."
"What was he smoking!"
"Yeah, I know. I told you we should have reviewed it. Go write a quick retraction. Can't have this BS floating around."
That now makes sense. That is pretty damning. I wonder how Euclid can turn this so he can continue to carry EHH's water for him.
BC2 That now makes sense. That is pretty damning. I wonder how Euclid can turn this so he can continue to carry EHH's water for him.
I think the conflicting letters are strange. It’s just my opinion. Don has offered a theory that makes sense, as you say. However, it may or may not be the actual explanation. Even if his theory is correct, the explanation still seems a little strange. I notice that the second letter, while thoroughly retracting the rather comprehensive position of the first letter, offers no comment on what the STB had asked for. Instead, it offers to respond to those issues only if the STB asks again. I think that too is a little strange. Here is another theory: There is disagreement among CSX management about what Harrison is doing, and they all can write letters.
Euclid ..........Here is another theory: There is disagreement among CSX management about what Harrison is doing, and they all can write letters.
Euclid BC2 That now makes sense. That is pretty damning. I wonder how Euclid can turn this so he can continue to carry EHH's water for him. I think the conflicting letters are strange. It’s just my opinion. Don has offered a theory that makes sense, as you say. However, it may or may not be the actual explanation. Even if his theory is correct, the explanation still seems a little strange. I notice that the second letter, while thoroughly retracting the rather comprehensive position of the first letter, offers no comment on what the STB had asked for. Instead, it offers to respond to those issues only if the STB asks again. I think that too is a little strange. Here is another theory: There is disagreement among CSX management about what Harrison is doing, and they all can write letters.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.