I don't know how many managers are needed, and they may very well be overpopulated and wasting money. But then they are the ones who get to decide where to cut costs. Business typically goes after the tiniest increment of saving imaginable. They see this as being of the utmost importance. I think they also see themselves as being in a perpetual war with Labor. So savings can become almost like retaliation preemptively in the never-ending bargaining process.
Old design reality friend "constants aren't; variables won't" plus the wildcard of every human who can't walk, think or drive coherently will kill off the chances of this happening. (TTC Test track is as close to a controlled environment as there can be.)
Just think of the Enid Can Opener, which hasn't gone anywhere yet!
Stuff happens. Common carrier railroads do not operate in a vacuum or controlled environment.
Euclid I don't know how many managers are needed, and they may very well be overpopulated and wasting money. But then they are the ones who get to decide where to cut costs. Business typically goes after the tiniest increment of saving imaginable. They see this as being of the utmost importance. I think they also see themselves as being in a perpetual war with Labor. So savings can become almost like retaliation preemptively in the never-ending bargaining process.
Just to put things in context, I took a look at the CSX annual report. In it, total operating expenses for 2018 were $7.38 billion, labor was $2.74 billion, which is about 37%, hardly a trivial number. We don't know earnings of engineers because their pay schedule is complex, but likely $100K to $165K.
BaltACD Euclid tree68 Euclid Today we have PSR which is an acronym in search of a meaning. I think it's been defined here pretty well - the moving of assets/cash to the bottom line where they can be harvested for the benefit of investors. I disagree with that definition of PSR. PSR is a marketing tactic supposedly composed of strategic actions that are claimed to improve operating efficiency. What those strategic actions are, however, and how they are organized is not clear from any reporting that I have seen. I believe PSR actually is mostly being used as a means of modernizing a corporate image or brand. You are right - it is a marketing strategy ... to loot the carriers of as much or more cash as possible and send it to the Hedge Funds. The Marketing Strategy is designed to cover up the embezzlement.
Euclid tree68 Euclid Today we have PSR which is an acronym in search of a meaning. I think it's been defined here pretty well - the moving of assets/cash to the bottom line where they can be harvested for the benefit of investors. I disagree with that definition of PSR. PSR is a marketing tactic supposedly composed of strategic actions that are claimed to improve operating efficiency. What those strategic actions are, however, and how they are organized is not clear from any reporting that I have seen. I believe PSR actually is mostly being used as a means of modernizing a corporate image or brand.
tree68 Euclid Today we have PSR which is an acronym in search of a meaning. I think it's been defined here pretty well - the moving of assets/cash to the bottom line where they can be harvested for the benefit of investors.
Euclid Today we have PSR which is an acronym in search of a meaning.
I think it's been defined here pretty well - the moving of assets/cash to the bottom line where they can be harvested for the benefit of investors.
I disagree with that definition of PSR. PSR is a marketing tactic supposedly composed of strategic actions that are claimed to improve operating efficiency. What those strategic actions are, however, and how they are organized is not clear from any reporting that I have seen. I believe PSR actually is mostly being used as a means of modernizing a corporate image or brand.
You are right - it is a marketing strategy ... to loot the carriers of as much or more cash as possible and send it to the Hedge Funds. The Marketing Strategy is designed to cover up the embezzlement.
In my opinion, the objection to automatic trains is exactly the same as the objection to PSR; and neither objection as anything to do with a loss of safety or investors looting the company. In actuality, both are objecting to a reduction of labor.
Euclid In actuality, both are objecting to a reduction of labor.
I object to all of it.
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
EuclidIn my opinion, the objection to automatic trains is exactly the same as the objection to PSR; and neither objection as anything to do with a loss of safety or investors looting the company. In actuality, both are objecting to a reduction of labor.
Since you have had no real world railroad experience, your words are worth less than the bits and bytes required to form them.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD Euclid In my opinion, the objection to automatic trains is exactly the same as the objection to PSR; and neither objection as anything to do with a loss of safety or investors looting the company. In actuality, both are objecting to a reduction of labor. Since you have had no real world railroad experience, your words are worth less than the bits and bytes required to form them.
Euclid In my opinion, the objection to automatic trains is exactly the same as the objection to PSR; and neither objection as anything to do with a loss of safety or investors looting the company. In actuality, both are objecting to a reduction of labor.
charlie hebdo We don't know earnings of engineers because their pay schedule is complex, but likely $100K to $165K.
Thank you for the factual data.
Euclid “The prospect of more one-person crews, never mind self-driving trains, has generated controversy. Railroad unions in particular object, claiming that reduced crews put workers and the public at risk.”
“The prospect of more one-person crews, never mind self-driving trains, has generated controversy. Railroad unions in particular object, claiming that reduced crews put workers and the public at risk.”
A base salary of $97000 US is likely pretty average for a Class One engineer. On CN here in Canada $120-180k Canadian per year fits the scale quite well.
10000 feet and no dynamics? Today is going to be a good day ...
Fred M Cain Euclid “The prospect of more one-person crews, never mind self-driving trains, has generated controversy. Railroad unions in particular object, claiming that reduced crews put workers and the public at risk.” Isn't this also just another double standard for the way the government and safety regulators treat railroads vs highways? Why would they ban self driving trains but give autonomous trucks a clear block? That just makes NO sense.
When the reality of self-driving cars, trucks, and trains first appeared, I was completely against it. Safety was the number one issue with me.
However, after reading quite a bit, I think I'm changing my opinion. Each year we have thousands of highway deaths, with nearly every one of them being the fault of the drivers. There have also been some train accidents caused by engineers disregarding rules and limits. Are the computers going to have a worse record?
I believe that as the systems are perfected, the computers will be able to handle a car, truck, or train (or plane) more safely than a person.
I guess I'm still not completely sure.
York1 John
Euclid The government is not banning self-driving trains. The opposition to self-driving trains is coming form the unions who object to the reduction of labor that would result from self-driving trains. <SNIP> I believe that self-driving trains are right around the corner.
Euclid,
Well, if self-driving trains are right around the corner that might reduce railroading’s operating costs somewhat on long hauls. To get there we have to first have single person crews but I’m not sure we’re even at that point, yet, are we? So, I still think that regulation is preventing this – it’ s not JUST the unions (although I’m sure they’re lobbying heavily).
But where the railroads REALLY need to cut costs and cut them WAY down is on the collection and distribution of loose car railroading (see the article in the last issue of TRAINS on the demise of loose car railroading).
Somehow, someway, a way needs to be found to devise an autonomous or semi-autonomous way to get a loaded boxcar from the shipper’s dock to the yard and then at the other end of the haul from the yard to the receiver’s dock.
THAT in my own personal, honest and humble opinion is the nut we will have to crack to really bring back loose car railroading in a big way.
Trains are already on "fixed guideway" so we don’t need extremely advanced technology to try and keep them in their lane as trucks would require. They only need to be kept from running into each other.
In many cases, grade crossings will have to be eliminated but that might be a good idea anyways.
Regards,
Fred M. Cain
York1 When the reality of self-driving cars, trucks, and trains first appeared, I was completely against it. Safety was the number one issue with me. However, after reading quite a bit, I think I'm changing my opinion. Each year we have thousands of highway deaths, with nearly every one of them being the fault of the drivers. There have also been some train accidents caused by engineers disregarding rules and limits. Are the computers going to have a worse record? I believe that as the systems are perfected, the computers will be able to handle a car, truck, or train (or plane) more safely than a person. I guess I'm still not completely sure.
Yeah, I’m not sure either. There are so many things that could go wrong with a self-driving semi-truck that it’s really frightening. Cars might not be as bad but I can see your concern over highway deaths.
Here is something that I have thought about: 17 school kids die in a senseless school shooting. That is truly tragic and front page news. But I could probably almost guarantee that on any given day, 17 more kids die in traffic accidents. Definitely NOT front page news. Not to trivialize the school shootings but WHERE is the outrage over lost lives on the highways?
We are losing nearly 40,000 people a year in bloody traffic accidents but WHERE is the outrage? Could you imagine if that many people were dying in a war?
The troubling fact is that no one knows what to do about it. Will self-driving cars help? Maybe.
It would be a wonderful dream if we could just get rid of all the damn cars and we could all ride trains, subways and light rail but I’m afraid that is not realistic. I’d be glad to do it but that’s just me. I can’t speak for everyone else.
Fred M Cain
Fred M Cainrid of all the damn cars and we could all ride trains, subways and light rail
Russell
Fred M Cain Not to trivialize the school shootings but WHERE is the outrage over lost lives on the highways?
One difference is that the shootings are deliberate acts with the intent to kill.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Paul of Covington Fred M Cain Not to trivialize the school shootings but WHERE is the outrage over lost lives on the highways? One difference is that the shootings are deliberate acts with the intent to kill.
Paul,
Well, yes, that's most certainly true and that's what makes the school shootings so bone chilling.
But with traffic accidents we're still losing lives. If I had a 17 year-old daughter who was suddenly killed in a senseless traffic accident where someone had been texting, I'd still feel really awful even if the act was not "deliberate".
Oh well, enough said, I guess.
Fred M Cain Paul of Covington Fred M Cain Not to trivialize the school shootings but WHERE is the outrage over lost lives on the highways? One difference is that the shootings are deliberate acts with the intent to kill. Paul, Well, yes, that's most certainly true and that's what makes the school shootings so bone chilling. But with traffic accidents we're still losing lives. If I had a 17 year-old daughter who was suddenly killed in a senseless traffic accident where someone had been texting, I'd still feel really awful even if the act was not "deliberate". Oh well, enough said, I guess. Regards, Fred M. Cain
The reality is that we have had between 35K and 50K traffic deaths for decades - the only thing 'new' is the inattention to cell phones and texting have been added to the routine causes. Seat belts, air bags and designed crush structures have seriously decreased the number of deaths from what the incidents would have produced had the cars still been constructed as they were in the 40s' & 50's. Unexpected death will always be traumatic for the survivors of the deceased - no matter the cause.
Fred M CainWe are losing nearly 40,000 people a year in bloody traffic accidents but WHERE is the outrage?
There's been expressed outrage over this for many, many years -- each generation finds its own ways of expressing it, and trying to solve it.
Much of the high-speed road research starting in the 1930s, and reaching organized status in Government research in the late 1940s, explicitly addressed removing sources of high-speed trauma (like the aortic dissection that killed Diana Spencer) and of course many of the design initiatives imposed by the NHTSA, like two-piece steering columns, mandatory belt installation, dashboard padding and the 'right' kinds of safety glass have had their effect. (I could include mandatory air bags here, but they are controversial in much of their actual 'safety' effect vs. alternatives, particularly as they pose their own potential induction of injury or death; they are certainly useful for side-impact mitigation.)
Much of the push toward incorporating CEM involves the preservation of life at significant cost to car owners. In fact, it is common to total even relatively new cars if any of the air bags fire, regardless of the extent of other actual damage. Note that the recent European 'push' to upright pedestrian-collision-friendly styling and front aerodynamics, which interestingly appears to have had little effect on actual frontal drag or reduced effective CD for many modern cars, is supposed to have a substantial and measurable effect on injuries caused to 'victims' outside passengers in the vehicle, something I think few of the posted accident statistics include.
To see how America values the 'tradeoff' between speed and convenience on the one hand, and potential death on the other, look at the statistics surrounding the 55mph speed limit, remembering to correct for decrease in pax-miles or operated-miles due to the concomitant oil-price increases. Then look at the political action involved in the 1994 raising of that limit, and the 'additional' road deaths associated purely with the higher speed (this can be a bit involved, and of course partially subjective, to determine) -- remembering that autonomous vehicles remove a great deal of the active cause of higher-speed accidents, including by negotiated reduction of road speed 'due to conditions' that now includes accommodation of particular vehicles and not just 'nature' or 'acts of God'.
It appears that many people in America value the potential personal freedom and convenience of automobile use far more than the death toll resulting from it, even though highly aware of the situation, and having a great many things done to 'increase safety' that would likely not have been 'paid for' had they been optional. You must consider that when evaluating the horrible total number of fatalities.
Then, almost immediately, see how many accidents either causing or potentially leading to fatal injuries would be eliminated completely during autonomous operation. Everything involving impaired operation, for example. Or involved with lighting cigarettes (a cause of at least two significant head-on collisions personally known to me), or texting/phoning, or gabbling to fellow passengers or waving over the shoulder to friends or other things I've observed causing significant injury or fatality. All that factors directly against the risk of people jaywalking at night, or wanting to commit assisted suicide, or the other potential risks added by autonomous operation.
One of the more meaningful reductions in potential road risk from vehicle size/mass mismatch or multiple-speed operation is something facilitated effectively only in autonomous operation: the idea of CBTC-like 'platooning' of large trucks including hard inspection and maintenance standards and sufficient redundancy and 'artificial intelligence'. Among other things this completely eliminates issues with sustained use of both lanes for long periods of time, or operation that lugs uphill and then coasts past governed speed down, causing danger to smaller-vehicle traffic. This may not reduce actual death totals by a measurable amount, but it allows significantly greater road utilization without additional lane construction or route improvement (or toll-road construction, or facilitated toll imposition) which would have the effect over time of reducing the key statistic of deaths per 100,000miles or whatever metric you care to apply.
Getting back to self-driving trains, whether freight or passenger (and the designs for freight, heavy rail, and light rail are all different): what would be necessary is not something that existing designs, even those adapted from current autonomous-vehicle 'massive sensor input' approaches, are capable of achieving, in much the same way as the 'goals' of safe train control can never be accomplished (without enormous added cost and changes to programming and system standards especially in the SDR equipment) using the current PTC mandate's division of requirements on the currently mandated equipment. In my very long considered opinion on this precise topic: no, it's not ready for rollout on the general system of North American transportation yet. Neither is one-man operation for freight without significant revisions in what it involves -- revisions that do, in my opinion, significantly compromise safety in a number of ways, all of which are still 'worse' for projected autonomous operation.
Overmod There's been expressed outrage over this for many, many years -- each generation finds its own ways of expressing it, and trying to solve it. Much of the high-speed road research starting in the 1930s, and reaching organized status in Government research in the late 1940s, explicitly addressed removing sources of high-speed trauma (like the aortic dissection that killed Diana Spencer) and of course many of the design initiatives imposed by the NHTSA, like two-piece steering columns, mandatory belt installation, dashboard padding and the 'right' kinds of safety glass have had their effect. (I could include mandatory air bags here, but they are controversial in much of their actual 'safety' effect vs. alternatives, particularly as they pose their own potential induction of injury or death; they are certainly useful for side-impact mitigation.) Much of the push toward incorporating CEM involves the preservation of life at significant cost to car owners. In fact, it is common to total even relatively new cars if any of the air bags fire, regardless of the extent of other actual damage. Note that the recent European 'push' to upright pedestrian-collision-friendly styling and front aerodynamics, which interestingly appears to have had little effect on actual frontal drag or reduced effective CD for many modern cars, is supposed to have a substantial and measurable effect on injuries caused to 'victims' outside passengers in the vehicle, something I think few of the posted accident statistics include.
Here are a few more words to help form a clear picture of what is happening with automatic trains:
https://www.heritage.org/government-regulation/commentary/crew-cuts-railroad-technology-reduces-labor-costs-improves-safety
OvermodTo see how America values the 'tradeoff' between speed and convenience on the one hand, and potential death on the other, look at the statistics surrounding the 55mph speed limit, remembering to correct for decrease in pax-miles or operated-miles due to the concomitant oil-price increases.
As I mentioned somewhere - raw numbers published by NTSB (or another similar agency) which gave some 20+ years data, showed that the death rate per mile driven actually went up when the speed limit was lowered. The 'why' would probably generate a lot of discussion.
It is amazing how quickly those who oppose higher speeds forget that at one time in the not-to-distant past, safety advocates were pointing out that most fatal accidents occur at speeds under 45 MPH. And that most accidents occur within 25 miles of home, which would tend to place such driving on "local" roads, as opposed to superhighways.
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...
OvermodIt appears that many people in America value the potential personal freedom and convenience of automobile use far more than the death toll resulting from it
That's me.
tree68the death rate per mile driven actually went up when the speed limit was lowered. The 'why' would probably generate a lot of discussion.
It really needs very little. You simply need to use oranges-to-oranges comparison looking at the actual data.
Fred's number is absolute deaths in a given time period. The NHTSA (I think it was they) metric uses something different: it divides absolute deaths by some number of miles run, perhaps with bugger factors for a variety of circumstances (e.g. weighting state highways or 'special' slow zones differently) and, as a result, the number of 'deaths per x miles' might have gone down even if the absolute number of deaths went up. Note that there is an additional corollary for enforcement: if it is more strict (specifically including the effect of systematic 'rolling roadblocks'), the effect on actual aggregate mileage may outweigh the lives saved by speed enforcement ... or the lives saved by catching impaired or unsafe drivers ... who knows, without looking at the primary data appropriately, and that might not even have been properly recorded in the first place.
Overmod... The NHTSA (I think it was they) metric uses something different: it divides absolute deaths by some number of miles run, ...
The table (which had numbers back into the 1950's) was in a regular publication - it may have been NHTSA, which makes more sense - that we got in our office. I might have kept that issue, but where I'd find it in my files is up for grabs.
The chart did have a number of columns, as I recall, including miles driven. I charted several of those columns, which provided me with my conclusion.
I've always surmised that many of the "safer" drivers, or those whose driving was for some reason less risky, cut their driving due to the price of fuel, etc. That left the "risky" drivers still on the road, having accidents, if you will.
tree68And that most accidents occur within 25 miles of home
zardoz tree68 And that most accidents occur within 25 miles of home Which is why I moved.....
Which is why I moved.....
tree68safety advocates were pointing out that most fatal accidents occur at speeds under 45 MPH
And to be even safer, quickly accelerate to 70 mph no matter where you are.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.