Overmod What I think you meant to say was that 'total mileage dropped SO the 'fatality rate' actually rose. In other words, there were fewer overall deaths (so the proponents of the double-nickel boondoggle would say they were justified) but more deaths per passenger-mile (which I assume was only for passenger-miles on 55mph roads that used to have higher speed limits, but with Government statistrickcians, who knows?).\
I have a copy of the chart, which was part of a magazine put out at the time by (I think) NHTSA. I'd have to do some serious digging to find it. Current NTHSA charts don't differentiate between private and commercial - it's just "Vehicle Miles Travelled."
Regardless of how it's phrased - the death rate went up.
I graphed the information on the chart at the time. A better than ten year downward trend in highway death rates was reversed at that time. The number of deaths dropped, of course, as did the miles driven. But as I recall, the deaths per mile rose. Or at least levelled off.
The general conclusion I drew from that was that it was likely the "safer" drivers tended to stay home or otherwise restrict their driving while riskier drivers continued to drive. A couple of broad categories, to be sure.
Of course, this is all from memory. And we know how that works.
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...
tree68A similar trend occurred back in 1974 with highway fatalities. Because of the gas shortages and the resultant reduction of speed limits, total mileage dropped, but the fatality rate actually rose.
You need to be careful with grammar here. What I think you meant to say was that 'total mileage dropped SO the 'fatality rate' actually rose. In other words, there were fewer overall deaths (so the proponents of the double-nickel boondoggle would say they were justified) but more deaths per passenger-mile (which I assume was only for passenger-miles on 55mph roads that used to have higher speed limits, but with Government statistrickcians, who knows?).\
If you wonder why I think an expanded version of How to Lie with Statistics should be a required course subject in elementary and junior high ... here is a magnificent example.
Murphy Siding Thanks. I see that a little clearer now. It tells me that CSX is less safe than it was a year ago.
A similar trend occurred back in 1974 with highway fatalities. Because of the gas shortages and the resultant reduction of speed limits, total mileage dropped, but the fatality rate actually rose.
VOLKER LANDWEHRTo get the accident rate you divide the number of accidents by the number of trains. With the number of accidents steady but less trains the denominator gets smaller and the percentage gets higher. The given percentages of 14% and 19% are not the accident rates but their percental change: x number accidents, n number trains.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding If the number of accidents and injuries held steady, but the percentages went up because of 11% fewer employees and less trains, shouldn't the 14% figure and 19% figure be relatively the same % number? With less employees and less trains, why didn't the % go down?
To get the accident rate you divide the number of accidents by the number of trains. With the number of accidents steady but less trains the denominator gets smaller and the percentage gets higher.
The given percentages of 14% and 19% are not the accident rates but their percental change: x number accidents, n number trains.
accident rate: x/n; with 10% less trains x/(0.9*n);
difference: x/(0.9*n)- x/n = 0.1*x/0.9*n
percental change: (0.1*x/0.9*n)/(x/n)*100 = change [%] = 0.1/0.9*100= 11.1%
So a reduction of train number by 10% with steady accident numbers leads to an increase of the accident rate by 11.1%.I hope that helps a bit. If I made a mistake please correct me, it is quite some time since I retired.Regards, Volker
tree68 Euclid I took him to mean that he believes it will not help the bottom line. So I said I thought it would help the bottom line. His answer to me at that point seems extremely illogical, and sounds as if he perceives CSX as presenting this coal hauling pricing as something representing their new miracle of precision railroading while Murphy sees right through it as being a lot of smoke and mirrors. Once again, I think you'll find that many here feel that CSX's accounting is, indeed, a lot of smoke and mirrors. The only way that reducing rates in this case "helps" the bottom line is because it keeps that line item from going to zero. This has nothing to do with increasing revenue. And, as Balt points out, CSX to some extent brought this on themselves due to the decreased efficiency with which the railroad is being run.
Euclid I took him to mean that he believes it will not help the bottom line. So I said I thought it would help the bottom line. His answer to me at that point seems extremely illogical, and sounds as if he perceives CSX as presenting this coal hauling pricing as something representing their new miracle of precision railroading while Murphy sees right through it as being a lot of smoke and mirrors.
Once again, I think you'll find that many here feel that CSX's accounting is, indeed, a lot of smoke and mirrors.
The only way that reducing rates in this case "helps" the bottom line is because it keeps that line item from going to zero. This has nothing to do with increasing revenue.
And, as Balt points out, CSX to some extent brought this on themselves due to the decreased efficiency with which the railroad is being run.
Murphy Siding and I started discussing this point by a mutual reference to “helping” or “improving” the bottom line. At that point, neither of us said anything about this effect on the bottom line rising to the result of increasing revenue to a level higher than it was prior to lowering the coal rates.
Murphy Siding only introduced that requirement to raise the bar in order to refute my claim that lowering coal rates could “help” or “improve” the bottom line. Prior to the introduction of this new requirement, neither I nor CSX had claimed that lowering the coal rates would actually cause positive net growth of the bottom line. However, merely preventing the bottom line from falling further does indeed amount to “helping” or “improving” the bottom line.
Also note that “helping the bottom line” (i.e. creating “positive impacts” on the bottom line) can also be achieved by reducing expenses by increasing efficiencies, reducing wages, and limiting the cost of capital, for instance.
In the cases of closing yards or selling locomotives, the positive impacts to the bottom line are not just the revenue from the sales of the equipment and materials, as many seem to suggest when they say that the positive effects are not sustainable over time, and that you cannot cut your way to profit. The positive impacts from eliminating inefficiencies are permanent and beneficial every day going forward.
Here are some references:
What is 'Bottom Line'
Most companies aim to improve their bottom lines through two simultaneous methods: growing revenues (i.e., generate top-line growth) and increasing efficiency (or cutting costs).
Positive Impacts on Bottom Line
Management can enact strategies to increase the bottom line. For starters, increases to revenue increase the bottom line. This may be done through increasing production, lowering sales returns through product improvement, expanding product lines or increasing product prices. Other income such as investment income, interest income, rental or co-location fees collected, and the sale of property or equipment also increase the bottom line.
A company can increase its bottom line through the reduction of expenses. In relation to products, items can be produced using different goods using more efficient methods. Decreasing wages and benefits, operating out of less expensive facilities, utilizing tax benefits, and limiting the cost of capital are ways to increase a bottom line.
Companies don't grow from cutting their core. Take the core out of a tree and it dies and can't support itself.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Somebody help me with some math logic please. This is from the linked article in the first post: "CSX’s safety figures continued to deteriorate in the quarter, continuing a trend that has concerned the Federal Railroad Administration. CSX’s FRA personal injury frequency index rose 14 percent, while the train accident rate increased 19 percent. While the number of accidents and injuries held steady, the rates rose because CSX employs fewer people and is running fewer trains." If the number of accidents and injuries held steady, but the percentages went up because of 11% fewer employees and less trains, shouldn't the 14% figure and 19% figure be relatively the same % number? With less employees and less trains, why didn't the % go down?
jeffhergert Railway Age article. https://www.railwayage.com/freight/class-i/csx-1q18-financials-records-broken-but-where-is-volume-growth/ CSX on April 17 posted record earnings and an all-time low operating ratio—based almost entirely on cost-cutting measures, headcount reductions, rate increases and stock buybacks, not volume growth. Jeff
Railway Age article.
https://www.railwayage.com/freight/class-i/csx-1q18-financials-records-broken-but-where-is-volume-growth/
CSX on April 17 posted record earnings and an all-time low operating ratio—based almost entirely on cost-cutting measures, headcount reductions, rate increases and stock buybacks, not volume growth.
Jeff
EuclidMurphy Siding said this about the CSX comment: “It goes to say they are going to try lowering rates on some coal traffic. Yeah, that should help the old bottom line.” I took him to mean that he believes it will not help the bottom line. So I said I thought it would help the bottom line. His answer to me at that point seems extremely illogical, and sounds as if he perceives CSX as presenting this coal hauling pricing as something representing their new miracle of precision railroading while Murphy sees right through it as being a lot of smoke and mirrors.
EuclidI took him to mean that he believes it will not help the bottom line. So I said I thought it would help the bottom line. His answer to me at that point seems extremely illogical, and sounds as if he perceives CSX as presenting this coal hauling pricing as something representing their new miracle of precision railroading while Murphy sees right through it as being a lot of smoke and mirrors.
tree68 You seem to be arguing that cutting the rates for hauling coal in a diminishing market in which the possibility of not hauling coal exists somehow will result in a larger profit.
You seem to be arguing that cutting the rates for hauling coal in a diminishing market in which the possibility of not hauling coal exists somehow will result in a larger profit.
It seems that I am being accused of aruging that, but I am not arguing that at all. CSX is not arguing that either. Perhaps the confusion arrises from the fact that they have been accused of arguing that.
CSX said this:
“The focus is on ensuring adequate rates and methodical, rational growth, he says. But CSX is reducing rates for some Southern utilities if it will prevent them from converting coal-fired power plants to natural gas. As natural gas prices remain low, CSX is doing what it can to keep coal flowing, Foote says. BNSF Railway has successfully used the same strategy for Powder River Basin coal it hauls to power plants in Texas.”
Murphy Siding "CSX’s safety figures continued to deteriorate in the quarter, continuing a trend that has concerned the Federal Railroad Administration. CSX’s FRA personal injury frequency index rose 14 percent, while the train accident rate increased 19 percent. While the number of accidents and injuries held steady, the rates rose because CSX employs fewer people and is running fewer trains."
Even the coal mine bosses knew you couldn't beat the mules.
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
EuclidI was referring to his premise, as indicated in your quote of him, that the premise was a plan intended to "increase your bottom line from what you are currently getting."
You have some wonderful logic going on here. F'rinstance, Murph asked you:
MurphIf your boss says he’s going to cut your pay in lieu of firing you, does your paycheck go up or down?
You replied:
EuclidIt goes up relative to not having a job.
I do believe most people would agree that your paycheck is going to be less as a result of the cut. If you get fired, it will be a great deal less, of course. But you aren't going to bring home more money from your job as a result.
This is why I qualified the statement.
Perhaps you'd care to go back and explain why my admittedly non-railroad example involving mowing lawns is incorrect. Because the direct analogy to mowing lawns is hauling coal.
Murphy Siding Euclid All I or CSX said is that it is a plan to add more to the bottom line. I have no idea whether that turns into profit or fails forgive me, I thought you understood how business and math work a little better than you seem to. Here is the definition of bottom line: The bottom line is a company's net income figure on a company's income statement.
Euclid All I or CSX said is that it is a plan to add more to the bottom line. I have no idea whether that turns into profit or fails
forgive me, I thought you understood how business and math work a little better than you seem to. Here is the definition of bottom line: The bottom line is a company's net income figure on a company's income statement.
EuclidAll I or CSX said is that it is a plan to add more to the bottom line. I have no idea whether that turns into profit or fails
Murphy Siding Euclid tree68 Euclid It most definitely is a CSX strategy to increase profits. Let me get this straight. I'm paying you to mow my lawn. I'm threatening to hire someone else. So you cut your rate. How does this increase your bottom line from what you are currently getting? It doesn't. Who ever claimed that it did? Uh....you did! In your post 5 posts above posted at 1:46 PM. Euclid It most definitely is a CSX strategy to increase profits.
Euclid tree68 Euclid It most definitely is a CSX strategy to increase profits. Let me get this straight. I'm paying you to mow my lawn. I'm threatening to hire someone else. So you cut your rate. How does this increase your bottom line from what you are currently getting? It doesn't. Who ever claimed that it did?
tree68 Euclid It most definitely is a CSX strategy to increase profits. Let me get this straight. I'm paying you to mow my lawn. I'm threatening to hire someone else. So you cut your rate. How does this increase your bottom line from what you are currently getting?
Euclid It most definitely is a CSX strategy to increase profits.
Let me get this straight. I'm paying you to mow my lawn. I'm threatening to hire someone else. So you cut your rate. How does this increase your bottom line from what you are currently getting?
It doesn't. Who ever claimed that it did?
Uh....you did! In your post 5 posts above posted at 1:46 PM.
Well yes it is a strategy to increase profits. Any strategy intended to add revenue to the bottom line stands a chance of increasing profits. But that is not the premise that I was questioning when I asked Larry, "Who ever claimed that it did?"
I was referring to his premise, as indicated in your quote of him, that the premise was a plan intended to "increase your bottom line from what you are currently getting." That part is an objective that you and Larry have added on your own in order to try and discredit the CSX strategy, and by extension, EHH.
All I or CSX said is that it is a plan to add more to the bottom line. I have no idea whether that turns into profit or fails to be cost-effective. But clearly, that is the CSX strategy. I said it, and they said it. You are trying to add new conditions to what they and I said. Nice try.
The current CSX method of raising profits is to loot its own infrastructure. The same as starving humans - starve them and their own body becomes it's own food source unitl death happens.
This part from the article looks pretty ominous, but hey- record earnings. Even though CSX eliminated 11% of their employees,the number of accidents and injuries held steady. "CSX’s safety figures continued to deteriorate in the quarter, continuing a trend that has concerned the Federal Railroad Administration. CSX’s FRA personal injury frequency index rose 14 percent, while the train accident rate increased 19 percent. While the number of accidents and injuries held steady, the rates rose because CSX employs fewer people and is running fewer trains."
tree68What's telling to me about CSX is that the increased profits seem to be as the results of cost cutting, not growth.
EuclidIt most definitely is a CSX strategy to increase profits.
It doesn't. Who ever claimed that it did? But at the point of my decision to cut the lawn rate in half, that is my strategy to make money even if it is less money than before. That is all CSX said. That is all I am saying. What is wrong with the strategy? There are plenty of business managers that, when faced with declining demand, choose to raise their rates. They are clueless about economics 101.
CSX never said they were cutting coal rates to boost revenue higher than it is while the power plants are presently burning coal. How did we ever get to that premise?
It is also not a forgone conclusion that any rate cut results in a failure to meet overhead expenses, as you have suggested earlier. Most business people are smart enough to recognize that simple peril. I am sure that if CSX would lose money on half their coal rate, they would not offer it.
All CSX is talking about is their management strategy to hold on to the coal buisiness. They are making exactly the right move. Not every company would when faced with the same dilema.
This is coming from the other side of the fence so to speak in the transportation industry. If my boss ran his company like CSX CN and CP had been run while EHH was at their helms he would be out of business. We are still scrambling for trailers even with a ratio of close to 3 to 1 for every tractor in the fleet. EHH was a 70's railroader that thought cutting your way to profits was possible. He forgot that the railroads had been deregulated and that customer service mattered. Hell we picked up 2 former CSX customers over the winter due to their service Issues. Thanks CSX for the extra 2 million in revenue we are getting this year. I know of several carriers that gained new customers all over the place in the SE and Mid Atlantic due to EHH and his PSR models. Even with our higher overall costs they know we will get there as long as the roads are open.
And never mind that BS about the decreased amount you're getting paid being more than what you'll get paid if I don't keep you on.
So, let's take a look at it:
I pay you $20 a week to mow my lawn.
Figure a couple of bucks for gas.
Subtract a couple more for depreciation (saving to buy a new mower)
$20 - $4 = $16 net profit.
Now you cut your rate so I'll continue using your service. Now it'll be $19 per week.
Gas still costs you $2.00
You still put away $2.00 for a new mower.
$19 - $4 = $15.
Of course, if you want to maintain that net profit at $16, you can cut back saving for a new mower to $1.00.
Or you can cut back on your savings for the new mower entirely, and now your net will be $17.00. Voila! You've increased your profit! Of course, when your current mower goes belly up, you won't have any savings to buy a new one, but who cares? By then you'll have moved on to another project...
Euclid Murphy Siding BaltACD Brian Schmidt JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — CSX Transportation reported record first-quarter earnings on Tuesday as a combination of cost-cutting and rate increases more than offset flat revenue and lower traffic volume. Net income nearly doubled, to $695 million, o... Who is cutting rates? From the linked press release article:"CSX is reducing rates for some Southern utilities if it will prevent them from converting coal-fired power plants to natural gas".as euclid points out above, this is another one of their strategies to increase profits. (<<<sarcasm, if it isn't obvious) It most definitely is a CSX strategy to increase profits. Yes the bottom line is falling if they lose the coal traffic, but that is not being caused by CSX. They have no control over it. That is a result of the competition between coal and natural gas. All CSX can do is control their rates and service. In this case, they are choosing to lower coal rates to prevent power plant customers from switching from to natural gas. That may or may not work. It won't work if the natural gas incentive is too attractive for the power plants to stay with coal even if CSX lowers the shipping rate. But it most definitely is a CSX strategy to increase profits. But since you disagree, what would you say the purpose of CSX lowering coal rates is?
Murphy Siding BaltACD Brian Schmidt JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — CSX Transportation reported record first-quarter earnings on Tuesday as a combination of cost-cutting and rate increases more than offset flat revenue and lower traffic volume. Net income nearly doubled, to $695 million, o... Who is cutting rates? From the linked press release article:"CSX is reducing rates for some Southern utilities if it will prevent them from converting coal-fired power plants to natural gas".as euclid points out above, this is another one of their strategies to increase profits. (<<<sarcasm, if it isn't obvious)
BaltACD Brian Schmidt JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — CSX Transportation reported record first-quarter earnings on Tuesday as a combination of cost-cutting and rate increases more than offset flat revenue and lower traffic volume. Net income nearly doubled, to $695 million, o... Who is cutting rates?
Brian Schmidt JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — CSX Transportation reported record first-quarter earnings on Tuesday as a combination of cost-cutting and rate increases more than offset flat revenue and lower traffic volume. Net income nearly doubled, to $695 million, o...
Who is cutting rates?
From the linked press release article:"CSX is reducing rates for some Southern utilities if it will prevent them from converting coal-fired power plants to natural gas".as euclid points out above, this is another one of their strategies to increase profits. (<<<sarcasm, if it isn't obvious)
It most definitely is a CSX strategy to increase profits. Yes the bottom line is falling if they lose the coal traffic, but that is not being caused by CSX. They have no control over it. That is a result of the competition between coal and natural gas. All CSX can do is control their rates and service. In this case, they are choosing to lower coal rates to prevent power plant customers from switching from to natural gas.
That may or may not work. It won't work if the natural gas incentive is too attractive for the power plants to stay with coal even if CSX lowers the shipping rate. But it most definitely is a CSX strategy to increase profits. But since you disagree, what would you say the purpose of CSX lowering coal rates is?
Rates are being 'decreased' because CSX is not delivering product at the agreed upon rate to sustain the higher rates. When a Power Plant decides to go the natural gas, the rates for coal transportation don't have any effect.
The CSX Spin Doctors aren't going to glorify the fact the the decreased rates are account of non-performance and are a part of the penalty clauses of the contracts.
SaturnaliaCN and CP are industry leaders in profitability and traffic handling. Granted there are some operational issues brought out by CN's incredible traffic growth in particular right now - I'm not saying EHH's strategy was perfect in every way.
How much time did they have to spend in recovery after EHH left?
What's telling to me about CSX is that the increased profits seem to be as the results of cost cutting, not growth.
You can cut costs at home by shutting off all the lights and not doing laundry, but in the end all you end up with is stubbed toes and less friends, although you have more money in the bank (or in the case of CSX, more money for the investors).
If you want more spending money, you look for more revenue.
That's not to say that you can't be reducing expenses by turning off unnecessary lights and washing clothes in cold water, and that's certainly desirable. But if your cuts are draconian, and the only reason is to put money in someone's pocket, that's not the way to do business.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.