oltmanndJust 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?
Even looking the EHH perf. measures on the CSX site, the needle has been stuck for 10 weeks. No improvement - only a little noise.
According to CSX, the "improved" plan is fully in place. Just tweaking and improving execution to do. But, if the same folks and resources have been at it for 10 weeks with no improvment, what will make the needle move?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Thanx. I like it BaltAD
This is getting old. Come on, kids, play nice.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Euclid You have no idea what my background is.
You have no idea what my background is.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
EuclidYou have no idea what my background is.
And while many of us think you have no background in railroad operations but a lot of experience in debating, perhaps you could "put up or shut up". Will you provide some information about your background? Then we would have knowledge of your background.
---
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Murphy Siding Euclid Murphy Siding oltmannd Famous Earl Weaver quote to umpire who he thought was blowing balls and strikes calls. 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. This is even less than I thought he could do, and I wasn't optomistic. I agree with your logic. When the needle stops moving, that's an indication that movement has bottomed out or topped out. And when the needle stops moving, that's also an indication that it will never move again. I don't think we necessarily know that that is not true.
Euclid Murphy Siding oltmannd Famous Earl Weaver quote to umpire who he thought was blowing balls and strikes calls. 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. This is even less than I thought he could do, and I wasn't optomistic. I agree with your logic. When the needle stops moving, that's an indication that movement has bottomed out or topped out. And when the needle stops moving, that's also an indication that it will never move again.
Murphy Siding oltmannd Famous Earl Weaver quote to umpire who he thought was blowing balls and strikes calls. 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. This is even less than I thought he could do, and I wasn't optomistic. I agree with your logic. When the needle stops moving, that's an indication that movement has bottomed out or topped out.
oltmannd Famous Earl Weaver quote to umpire who he thought was blowing balls and strikes calls. 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. This is even less than I thought he could do, and I wasn't optomistic.
Famous Earl Weaver quote to umpire who he thought was blowing balls and strikes calls.
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.
This is even less than I thought he could do, and I wasn't optomistic.
I agree with your logic. When the needle stops moving, that's an indication that movement has bottomed out or topped out.
And when the needle stops moving, that's also an indication that it will never move again.
I don't think we necessarily know that that is not true.
Well it might not be true once EHH is replaced with somebody who gets rid of all this precision railroading. Or it might not be true after this two months of the speaking voice of the process, even with EHH still in command. You never know what changes he might be making that will get the needle working again. You know what they always say: What you see is what you get.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
If the storm is bad enough after Dec 18th of this year after the ELD mandate goes into effect and it effects NYC Boston and Washington DC the Fireworks that hit the DOT for their dropping the ball on regulations over the last 8 years could be interesting. As for CSX it could be really interesting for them also. To be good and honest I am wanting a massive blizzard that basically paralizes the logistics chain for about 1 week to hammer the country right after the New Year and for those that scream it won't have an effect to end up going where is the food in the store.
EuclidThat is always a possibility. It could be a bad gauge or the whole instrument cluster.
Or operator error.
zugmann Euclid And when the needle stops moving, that's also an indication that it will never move again. The needle is out of service.
Euclid And when the needle stops moving, that's also an indication that it will never move again.
The needle is out of service.
That is always a possibility. It could be a bad gauge or the whole instrument cluster.
EuclidAnd when the needle stops moving, that's also an indication that it will never move again.
zugmann Be interesting to see what happens if we get some good snow storms in the NE this winter.
Be interesting to see what happens if we get some good snow storms in the NE this winter.
It won’t be if, it’ll be when, and I suspect it’s not just snowfall that interferes with brittle precision scheduling.
What will be truly interesting is the scapegoat Hunter tries to use to explain Mother Nature’s wicked premeditated opposition to and sabotage of his bold new operating models.
Be intersting to see what happens if we get some good snow storms in the NE this winter.
The 'process' is on going - Mantle Ridge with EHH's 'help' is hoovering every available nickle and dime out of the CSX coffers. What happens in operations is mere window dressing.
EuclidMaybe this is more in response to your point: When I said “I would not even conclude that capital inputs are frozen," this does not mean that I do conclude that capital inputs are unfrozen. It does not go that far as to mean the opposite
Actually the comment as you just made it basically confirms the point I was making: you CANNOT ‘conclude’ anything here, even that ‘you can’t conclude modally yes or no there will be increased capital spending’ as if that is the only significant or even a particularly important point. That word should not be used in any thread like this, probably not even in a ‘meta’ sense.
The thing here is avoid ‘concluding’ anything in the sense of ‘proof’ you were using, as there is and can’t be sufficient certainty to form such opinions. I have long since automatically inserted the usual disclaimers into posts that express opinions in positive language, or that express opinion as if it were settled fact or even ‘preponderance of the evidence’. I will leave it up to Don whether to carefully define all his assumptions every time he opines in a sentence, or even to keep qualifying that each claim is not fully proven as he makes it. I would prefer ’assuming’ that anything he says is his opinion to assuming he thinks he has perfect knowledge and then attacking that instead of taking up the points about likelihood of outcome based on what he sees now and understands about the industry.
That certainly doesn’t mean you “have” to agree with him, but please, don’t disagree with the philosophy of the assumptions, just counter his arguments with evidence the other way — which you can do quite well when you look at the actual problem. This is not a debating society or the sophomore study hall of the philosophy department, it‘s a friendly discussion and should remain one.
Murphy Siding Double negatives or not no double negatives, I'm having a hard time keeping up.From the post above: Euclid I think it says exactly what I mean, either as reconstructed above or with my orginal double negative construction. What I said is an agnostic expression that I simply do not know whether the inputs are frozen or not. From an earlier post: Euclid I don’t think the process is frozen...
Double negatives or not no double negatives, I'm having a hard time keeping up.From the post above:
Euclid I think it says exactly what I mean, either as reconstructed above or with my orginal double negative construction. What I said is an agnostic expression that I simply do not know whether the inputs are frozen or not.
From an earlier post:
Euclid I don’t think the process is frozen...
It is not a conflict. I do suspect that the process is not frozen. That is what I mean by "I don't think think the process is frozen". But I stop short of asserting that the process is not frozen because I don't know for sure. It just seems highly unlikely that the process is frozen because frozen is such an all inclusive term.
The way the process being frozen has been advanced seems to be intended to mean that nothing about CXS performance will improve under the management of EHH. It is obvious that it is intended as a judgment that EHH has failed.
EuclidI think it says exactly what I mean, either as reconstructed above or with my orginal double negative construction. What I said is an agnostic expression that I simply do not know whether the inputs are frozen or not.
Overmod Euclid How about this: “I would not even conclude that capital inputs are frozen." Thing is, that doesn’t express what you meant either; it IS a legitimate double negative in expression in the sense we don’t know there is NOT some capital spending coming in the next months or even weeks. Right? Now all we need to do is choose the grammar that expresses that sense correctly — but only incidentally does the sense reflect a ‘frozen’ process in the sense we were using.
Euclid How about this: “I would not even conclude that capital inputs are frozen."
Thing is, that doesn’t express what you meant either; it IS a legitimate double negative in expression in the sense we don’t know there is NOT some capital spending coming in the next months or even weeks. Right? Now all we need to do is choose the grammar that expresses that sense correctly — but only incidentally does the sense reflect a ‘frozen’ process in the sense we were using.
I think it says exactly what I mean, either as reconstructed above or with my orginal double negative construction. What I said is an agnostic expression that I simply do not know whether the inputs are frozen or not. If I were to conclude that they are frozen, or are not frozen, that would be a positive assertion of knowing because that is what a conclusion is. But I have no conclusion. That is why I began my sentence with, "I would not even conclude..."
It reflects my position of not knowing one way or the other. In that case, it is accurate to pick one of the two alternatives and say I don't know if it exists. It might or might not. Of the two choices, I am far more incline to believe that the process is not frozen, but still, I can't say for sure. So I say I think it is not frozen.
It is only Don who has put forth a positive assertion that the process IS frozen.
Maybe this is more in response to your point:
When I said “I would not even conclude that capital inputs are frozen," this does not mean that I do conclude that capital inputs are unfrozen. It does not go that far as to mean the opposite.
EuclidHow about this: “I would not even conclude that capital inputs are frozen.
As Porta said in a different context (it suffers in translation a bit) ‘You don’t know what you don’t know ‘til you know it’. Certainly we won’t know about capex or other major expenditures until we hear or read about them ... but it does seem unlikely at this point they have anything particularly valuable to their ‘precision scheduled railroading’ that applies to customer satisfaction that they’d see as a funding priority. That means in part that ‘the onus rests on the presenter’ to indicate what a likely form of capital spending might be, and although as you point out we might well be surprised, there is a great deal of both presumptive evidence and ‘management intent’ the other way as far as any particularly significant capital expansion in the near term would be concerned...
Overmod Euclid said: "I would not even conclude that capital inputs are not currently underway." And why you think you could, or even should, be ‘concluding’ anything, after it’s already established you don’t even know what’s actually going on in CSX management,...
Euclid said:
"I would not even conclude that capital inputs are not currently underway."
And why you think you could, or even should, be ‘concluding’ anything, after it’s already established you don’t even know what’s actually going on in CSX management,...
I am referring to the prospect of my concluding that Don's conclusion is correct based on what he has said here to justify it. When I said, "I would not even conclude that capital inputs are not currently underway," I meant that I don't think Don has made the case that they are not currently underway. I am referring the case he made by saying this in his first post:
"Absent any new initiatives to get things moving, i.e. more locomotives, crews etc., this is what CSX under EHH will look like."
Overmod Euclid said: I would not even conclude that capital inputs are not currently underway. Overmod said: Double negatives used to be deprecated in standard written English, for reason including the one illustrated here. I know what you meant, but couldn’t you phrase it closer to what you meant?
Euclid said: I would not even conclude that capital inputs are not currently underway.
Overmod said:
Double negatives used to be deprecated in standard written English, for reason including the one illustrated here. I know what you meant, but couldn’t you phrase it closer to what you meant?
How about this:
“I would not even conclude that capital inputs are frozen.”
Overmod ...Aside from the basic silliness of responding to ‘I don’t know if it’s frozen or unfrozen’ with ‘so which is it?’ ... c’mon, Murphy, you know better ...
...Aside from the basic silliness of responding to ‘I don’t know if it’s frozen or unfrozen’ with ‘so which is it?’ ... c’mon, Murphy, you know better ...
Euclid Murphy Siding Euclid Murphy Siding Euclid I don’t know if the process is or isn’t frozen. So which is it? Assuming that frozen means no improvement or degradation in CSX performance under the continued influence of EHH, I see no proof to conclude that it is or is not frozen. However, being frozen seems far less likely than being unfrozen. The three statistics are only the results of operational inputs rather than a detail of the inputs. With a bomb thrower like Harrison running the show, I think it is likely that operational inputs are continuing, even if capital inputs such as equipment purchases are not happening. And who's to say that even those capital inputs will not happen in a month or two even if they are not happening today? I would not even conclude that capital inputs are not currently underway. All I can conclude is that the three performance statistics have been flat for two months. Dude! Surely you can't only quote half the post out of context and expect to be taken seriously!Here's the part you left out: Euclid I don’t think the process is frozen. Although I do know that the process has the numbers speaking for it, and of course, what you see is what you get. And what you see is what CSX will look like. And that is looking at the glass half full which can affect the process if you are too optimistic. You are arguing with yourself againg and it's hard to tell who is winning the arguement. All I can conclude is that someone with a railroad background (Don) has expressed his opinion. Someone with no railroad background (You) doubts that opinion by adding things that aren't even in the opinion>>> "Frozen" for example. I'm going with Don's opinion. You seem to be going out of your way to provoke hostility as you defend Don against what you regard as a personal attack on him by me. All I had done in my original comment was ask him for clarification. He eventually provided that clarification last night. He did not seem to have taken my question as a personal affront like you do on his behalf in defending him. My use of the word "frozen" was just my way of packaging several phrases that Don used in his first post such as, "what you see is what you get." It was just conversational shorthand to make positions easier to understand. It was not a conspiracy to undermine or trip up Don, as you seem to have discovered. It did not change any meaning. I am not arguing with myself. The part I left out of my quote was actually tongue in cheek to begin with as a parody of how complicated your were making the issue of whether I thought the process was frozen. It was not needed in my response in which I quoted around it. I don't agree with Don's opinion on this because I don't think the data is sufficient. You are, of course, free to agree with anything you want for any reason. You have no idea what my background is.
Murphy Siding Euclid Murphy Siding Euclid I don’t know if the process is or isn’t frozen. So which is it? Assuming that frozen means no improvement or degradation in CSX performance under the continued influence of EHH, I see no proof to conclude that it is or is not frozen. However, being frozen seems far less likely than being unfrozen. The three statistics are only the results of operational inputs rather than a detail of the inputs. With a bomb thrower like Harrison running the show, I think it is likely that operational inputs are continuing, even if capital inputs such as equipment purchases are not happening. And who's to say that even those capital inputs will not happen in a month or two even if they are not happening today? I would not even conclude that capital inputs are not currently underway. All I can conclude is that the three performance statistics have been flat for two months. Dude! Surely you can't only quote half the post out of context and expect to be taken seriously!Here's the part you left out: Euclid I don’t think the process is frozen. Although I do know that the process has the numbers speaking for it, and of course, what you see is what you get. And what you see is what CSX will look like. And that is looking at the glass half full which can affect the process if you are too optimistic. You are arguing with yourself againg and it's hard to tell who is winning the arguement. All I can conclude is that someone with a railroad background (Don) has expressed his opinion. Someone with no railroad background (You) doubts that opinion by adding things that aren't even in the opinion>>> "Frozen" for example. I'm going with Don's opinion.
Euclid Murphy Siding Euclid I don’t know if the process is or isn’t frozen. So which is it? Assuming that frozen means no improvement or degradation in CSX performance under the continued influence of EHH, I see no proof to conclude that it is or is not frozen. However, being frozen seems far less likely than being unfrozen. The three statistics are only the results of operational inputs rather than a detail of the inputs. With a bomb thrower like Harrison running the show, I think it is likely that operational inputs are continuing, even if capital inputs such as equipment purchases are not happening. And who's to say that even those capital inputs will not happen in a month or two even if they are not happening today? I would not even conclude that capital inputs are not currently underway. All I can conclude is that the three performance statistics have been flat for two months.
Murphy Siding Euclid I don’t know if the process is or isn’t frozen. So which is it?
Euclid I don’t know if the process is or isn’t frozen.
So which is it?
Assuming that frozen means no improvement or degradation in CSX performance under the continued influence of EHH, I see no proof to conclude that it is or is not frozen. However, being frozen seems far less likely than being unfrozen.
The three statistics are only the results of operational inputs rather than a detail of the inputs. With a bomb thrower like Harrison running the show, I think it is likely that operational inputs are continuing, even if capital inputs such as equipment purchases are not happening. And who's to say that even those capital inputs will not happen in a month or two even if they are not happening today? I would not even conclude that capital inputs are not currently underway.
All I can conclude is that the three performance statistics have been flat for two months.
Dude! Surely you can't only quote half the post out of context and expect to be taken seriously!Here's the part you left out:
Euclid I don’t think the process is frozen. Although I do know that the process has the numbers speaking for it, and of course, what you see is what you get. And what you see is what CSX will look like. And that is looking at the glass half full which can affect the process if you are too optimistic.
You are arguing with yourself againg and it's hard to tell who is winning the arguement. All I can conclude is that someone with a railroad background (Don) has expressed his opinion. Someone with no railroad background (You) doubts that opinion by adding things that aren't even in the opinion>>> "Frozen" for example. I'm going with Don's opinion.
You seem to be going out of your way to provoke hostility as you defend Don against what you regard as a personal attack on him by me. All I had done in my original comment was ask him for clarification. He eventually provided that clarification last night. He did not seem to have taken my question as a personal affront like you do on his behalf in defending him.
My use of the word "frozen" was just my way of packaging several phrases that Don used in his first post such as, "what you see is what you get." It was just conversational shorthand to make positions easier to understand. It was not a conspiracy to undermine or trip up Don, as you seem to have discovered. It did not change any meaning.
I am not arguing with myself. The part I left out of my quote was actually tongue in cheek to begin with as a parody of how complicated your were making the issue of whether I thought the process was frozen. It was not needed in my response in which I quoted around it.
I don't agree with Don's opinion on this because I don't think the data is sufficient. You are, of course, free to agree with anything you want for any reason.
EuclidAssuming that frozen means no improvement or degradation in CSX performance under the continued influence of EHH ...
Aside from the basic silliness of responding to ‘I don’t know if it’s frozen or unfrozen’ with ‘so which is it?’ ... c’mon, Murphy, you know better ... ‘frozen’ here refers to the term as used in the design process, where no more inputs or changes are made to the design in order to make subsequent execution practical. (Compare ‘creeping featurism’). The only change thereafter comes through separate ‘change management’ processes and again we have no idea how or if that’s formalized at CSX (I for one certainly hope so, although increasingly losing hope!). It has no relation whatsoever to incidental halts or lack of observed change in process execution.
As has been said, we don’t have hard information on CSX executive planning or priorities OTHER than those from statements or than can be deduced from actions or reflected in metrics. However, it’s reasonable to assume, as part of normal analytic planning, that an established policy will be continued until there is perceived need enough to change it. What we know of EHH’s personality, the circumstances surrounding the Mantle Ridge ‘play’, and the combined explanations and hype around ‘precision scheduled railroading’ do not indicate change in the next months, especially when ‘the men who manage money who manage the men who manage men’ are satisfied with the way Hunter says things are going.
I see no proof to conclude that it is or is not frozen.
And that would be right on multiple levels, but all Don was saying was a version of ‘if this goes on’ (both with respect to policies and trends observable in the effects of policies), and absent specific information about policies changing, the base prediction has to be made by extrapolating what is known or rationally expected (that is a technical term and does not require what we consider the normal meaning of ‘rational thinking!), with different alternatives made up and appropriately weighted. Otherwise any attempt at meaningful prediction or discourse dissolves into a soup of semantic opinions ... as here.
With a bomb thrower like Harrison running the show ...
I was almost upset enough at this ‘opinion’ to flag it, but it may be the result of too much other knee-jerk anti-EHH rhetoric, so perhaps it’s to be expected. But do you really think that’s all Harrison is, or that his experience is so meaningless, or things are so out of control at CSX that you have a Vader-breathing Orfeo Quatta in a Three Stooges skit at the helm?
Of course I don’t think you actually believe that because you then note
I think it is likely that operational inputs are continuing, even if capital inputs such as equipment purchases are not happening. And who's to say that even those capital inputs will not happen in a month or two even if they are not happening today?
That is all very right... as far as it goes. But in the absence of any actual pressure to change ... and I think at this point that both the STB and the Maryland Congressional Group are more than incidentally threatening all kinds of what they think constitutes effective pressure ... I’d much more expect the current strategy of beatings to continue until the morale of whatever shippers are left interested in CSX as a carrier improves. Which, again, is what I think in part Don was getting at.
I would not even conclude that capital inputs are not currently underway.
And why you think you could, or even should, be ‘concluding’ anything, after it’s already established you don’t even know what’s actually going on in CSX management, is worse than silly. Both the ‘process’ and process improvement are ongoing, and although it may be important to you to state some positive ‘yea’ or ‘nay’ as if it objectively matters, we’d all be better off sticking to conditionals even in opinions.
I am not nearly as interested in the semantics of whether a process might be like some ontological Schroedinger’s cat than in opinions about what, if anything, EHH might change if the numbers, or perceptions of them “where it matters”, stay low or start turning worse. Or when we might expect to see the current ‘process’ start to produce better metrics (either generally accepted in the railroad business or as spun to be acceptable to those in the money business) and where these might first start to be observable.
‘Conclusions‘ based on insufficient data in a situation where active disinformation is likely in play, with all the baggage historically observed with yes-but’ry followed by a wild swing to an equally ‘conclusive’ different extreme ... little point to that.
Frozen
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.