Railroad Productivity Gains..an Illusion or real?

[txhighballer]

Since the UTU has been forced to walk away from the national negotiations,I have been struck over the years as to how railroad management has been so keen on reducing crew size,saying this will save them money. Well,I wonder if it has in the long run. The elimination of cabooses,the extra brakeman,longer crew districts.how much has it really saved the railroads and how much productivity did they gain or lose? I submit,admittedly with no hard proof,that the gains were marginal and if there were any,one time gains. True if you have more people you spend more in crew costs,but what about that yard job with one less man? What about that brakeman that now has to walk 100 cars from the locomotive to the end to hang a FRED? Or perform an air test in an outlying terminal? It would have been easier if you had a man walking from the back,meet you in the middle,then returning to your respective positions on the train. How many man hours,track time,fuel do you waste with these type of operations day after day,year after year? I look forward to your responses.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by txhighballer

Since the UTU has been forced to walk away from the national negotiations,I have been struck over the years as to how railroad management has been so keen on reducing crew size,saying this will save them money. Well,I wonder if it has in the long run. The elimination of cabooses,the extra brakeman,longer crew districts.how much has it really saved the railroads and how much productivity did they gain or lose? I submit,admittedly with no hard proof,that the gains were marginal and if there were any,one time gains. True if you have more people you spend more in crew costs,but what about that yard job with one less man? What about that brakeman that now has to walk 100 cars from the locomotive to the end to hang a FRED? Or perform an air test in an outlying terminal? It would have been easier if you had a man walking from the back,meet you in the middle,then returning to your respective positions on the train. How many man hours,track time,fuel do you waste with these type of operations day after day,year after year? I look forward to your responses.

When I was in ICG "Management" we'd gross about $750 million a year. That was what we billed to shippers. Out of that we paid everythig. Wages, fuel, equipment costs, medical, retirement, everything.

I was talking to a financial guy prior to a meeting. He told me we were spending $80 million per year on 'excess' crew costs. "That's what's wrong with the railroad" is what he said. If a company can bring 10% of its gross down to its bottom line, it's doing good. We had to spend more than that paying people to ride trains.

Crap, we had to use seven four person crews to get a train from Chicago to New Orleans. A crew would start in Chicago and work all the way to Champaign. Then another four man crew would work to Centrailia, then another four m an crew would work to Cairo. We had to pay 12 days pay to get a train out of Illinois.

The truckers would laugh and take the frieght.

We had to use 16 people to move a train from Council Bluffs to Chicago, that's 500 miles. And most of 'em didn't have very much at all to do on their very short train rides.
The truckers would laugh and take the freight.

Look at how well the new IC (Now CN) has done since the changes compared to how poorly they were doing before.

For years, the railroad operating unions were the best friends the truckers had. They helped bleed the railroads dry and diverted mucho freight to the highway.

I'm not against unions. I believe a worker should be treated fairly, have a safe working environment, have decent job security, be well paid with good benifits, and have a good retirement plan.

But you can't pay trainloads of people to do no useful work. And that's ONE of the reasons railroading got fixed financially. The other big reason was deregulation.

[Anonymous]

Well, if railroads had continued to increase max operating speeds after the 1930's (wherein 100 mph passenger operations, even a few fast freights, were getting down the tracks faster than any corresponding highway vehicle) and let the natural technology to it's logical evolution, maybe those four man crews would have been more productive than the two man crews today. Granted, the unions still would have prefered limited crew districts like the 100 mile day, and conversely the railroads would still be pusing for one man crews even with 50 mph or 75 mph average velocities, but think about this in terms of railroad productivity.

If railroads today had a standard of 125 mph top speeds and 75 mph average speeds, they'd be covering three times the distance between crew changes. A four man crew covering 600 miles a day is more productive than a two man crew covering 200 miles per day.

Yeah, railroads are productive today, but not real fast.

And the truckers weren't laughing because they were "taking" business from the railroads, rather they were bemoaning the fact that their perfered method of getting trailers between medium to long distance points, aka TOFC, was only offered in limited areas to limited clients over a limited network that had improved it's average velocity a measly 5 mph over the last 100 years.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Higher speeds do not necessarily improve productivity if the increased M/W requirements for high-speed track eat up any savings in crew costs. Also, higher speeds require higher horsepower, both for traction and braking.

Truckers were taking lots of business from rail, the earliest TOFC plans were all-rail operations using their own trucking subsidiaries at each end for pick-up and delivery. Competing over-the-road truckers were NOT involved in TOFC at the outset.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Well, if railroads had continued to increase max operating speeds after the 1930's (wherein 100 mph passenger operations, even a few fast freights, were getting down the tracks faster than any corresponding highway vehicle) and let the natural technology to it's logical evolution, maybe those four man crews would have been more productive than the two man crews today. Granted, the unions still would have prefered limited crew districts like the 100 mile day, and conversely the railroads would still be pusing for one man crews even with 50 mph or 75 mph average velocities, but think about this in terms of railroad productivity.

For somebody that has a bookeeping background, you continue to amaze me with your lack of basic math skills. The points were the crews were changed were based on a given track district, ie. number of miles. If the train speed is increased, they will cover that district faster (as in less hours on the road) and the crew will be on duty for less hours for the same pay, reducing their productivity.

You even show less ability when you stated: "Granted, the unions still would have prefered limited crew districts like the 100 mile day" showing you realized there was a crew district limit.

Maybe you should defer these type statements to someone that actually has some economics experience.

[txhighballer]

If you had a 100 mile crew district and you covered it in two hours,get paid for 8,then ready to head back the other way with another freight. Is that not more productive than take six hours to cover 100 miles,go get your rest,then back on the road?

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by txhighballer

If you had a 100 mile crew district and you covered it in two hours,get paid for 8,then ready to head back the other way with another freight. Is that not more productive than take six hours to cover 100 miles,go get your rest,then back on the road?

From the crewman's point of view, yes. From the railroad's point of view, no. They are paying a crewman 8 hours pay for 2 hours work. If he turns around and does another district length 2 hour run, he gets another 8 hours pay. He's worked 4 hours for 16 hours pay. If this happened on a regular basis, the railroad would want to increase the crew district size to have a crew cover more miles for a day's pay. THAT's the way the crewman's productivity would increase in the eyes of management.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by txhighballer

If you had a 100 mile crew district and you covered it in two hours,get paid for 8,then ready to head back the other way with another freight. Is that not more productive than take six hours to cover 100 miles,go get your rest,then back on the road?

From the crewman's point of view, yes. From the railroad's point of view, no. They are paying a crewman 8 hours pay for 2 hours work. If he turns around and does another district length 2 hour run, he gets another 8 hours pay. He's worked 4 hours for 16 hours pay. If this happened on a regular basis, the railroad would want to increase the crew district size to have a crew cover more miles for a day's pay. THAT's the way the crewman's productivity would increase in the eyes of management.

The RR would rather pay a crew 4 days pay for making two round trips than 4 crews one day pay. No motel. Fewer employees to pay fringe.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by txhighballer

Since the UTU has been forced to walk away from the national negotiations,I have been struck over the years as to how railroad management has been so keen on reducing crew size,saying this will save them money. Well,I wonder if it has in the long run. The elimination of cabooses,the extra brakeman,longer crew districts.how much has it really saved the railroads and how much productivity did they gain or lose? I submit,admittedly with no hard proof,that the gains were marginal and if there were any,one time gains. True if you have more people you spend more in crew costs,but what about that yard job with one less man? What about that brakeman that now has to walk 100 cars from the locomotive to the end to hang a FRED? Or perform an air test in an outlying terminal? It would have been easier if you had a man walking from the back,meet you in the middle,then returning to your respective positions on the train. How many man hours,track time,fuel do you waste with these type of operations day after day,year after year? I look forward to your responses.

Interesting points.

GM did something like this back in the 1970s. Get rid of employees. Toyota has robots? We'll show the Japanese (and the UAW) a thing or two about robots.

So, there's a documentary showing a beaming Roger Smith touring one of the new heavily roboted GM plants -- Lordstown, if I recall correctly.

The results? Strangest thing. Efficiency dropped. Costs increased.

What GM had done was replace people with high capital needs -- machinery. The problem was, the machinery couldn't think. Instead of people, whose learning curves improved with experience, the machines were in a constant state of degradation -- their performance over time deteriorated from wear and tear. Quality deteriorated. GM's reputation went in the dumpster (although by no means due to this single reason, Chevy engines in Cadillacs and diesel engines that blew up). This was exactly the opposite of humans.

Toyota had used robots in close association with people to help people do better jobs. Toyota could change production lines quickly because, ultimtely, it was people, and their ability to learn quickly and adjust quickly, that made the system work.

GM's assembly lines began to suffer the statistical inevitability of additive failure rates of machinery; roving teams of technicians became the norm to keep everything running. A product line changeover took weeks, months, as each robot had to be re-programmed, and then the whole assembly line reconfigured to fit the needs of the robots.

The analogy is not a perfect fit by any means, but it poses an interesting question. The amount of capital tied up in enabling the movement of a single 100 car train is enormous. Is there really a savings if the operating efficiency of the train deteriorates by 5% or 10% as the result of crew cuts? Does the additive or cumulative effect of inefficiencies cascade through the system causing or increasing congestion? Could operating efficiency be improved by adding crew?

[oltmannd]

I'll add this:

SOP now is for the road crew to come on duty at a terminal, get on the power, double the train, get the air test and leave. If they're lucky, this only takes two hours of their time, leaving 10 to get over the road. Suppose the over the road portion typically takes 5 hours. They tie up after 7 hours an go to the motel.

Suppose, now, you put on hostlers at the major terminals who put the power on the trains and get the air test done. Now the road crew comes on duty and is underway in 20 minutes. They arrive at the next terminal, on duty less than 6 hours, turn, and take another train back home.

The RR is happy - fewer employees overall (less fringe to pay), lower lodging expense
The crews are happy - more money for road jobs, more jobs where you get to sleep in your own bed everyday.

The only losers here are the unions who collect fewer dues and those on the bottom of the rosters who get cut off. (at least temporarily)

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by txhighballer

Since the UTU has been forced to walk away from the national negotiations,I have been struck over the years as to how railroad management has been so keen on reducing crew size,saying this will save them money. Well,I wonder if it has in the long run. The elimination of cabooses,the extra brakeman,longer crew districts.how much has it really saved the railroads and how much productivity did they gain or lose? I submit,admittedly with no hard proof,that the gains were marginal and if there were any,one time gains. True if you have more people you spend more in crew costs,but what about that yard job with one less man? What about that brakeman that now has to walk 100 cars from the locomotive to the end to hang a FRED? Or perform an air test in an outlying terminal? It would have been easier if you had a man walking from the back,meet you in the middle,then returning to your respective positions on the train. How many man hours,track time,fuel do you waste with these type of operations day after day,year after year? I look forward to your responses.

Interesting points.

GM did something like this back in the 1970s. Get rid of employees. Toyota has robots? We'll show the Japanese (and the UAW) a thing or two about robots.

So, there's a documentary showing a beaming Roger Smith touring one of the new heavily roboted GM plants -- Lordstown, if I recall correctly.

The results? Strangest thing. Efficiency dropped. Costs increased.

What GM had done was replace people with high capital needs -- machinery. The problem was, the machinery couldn't think. Instead of people, whose learning curves improved with experience, the machines were in a constant state of degradation -- their performance over time deteriorated from wear and tear. Quality deteriorated. GM's reputation went in the dumpster (although by no means due to this single reason, Chevy engines in Cadillacs and diesel engines that blew up). This was exactly the opposite of humans.

Toyota had used robots in close association with people to help people do better jobs. Toyota could change production lines quickly because, ultimtely, it was people, and their ability to learn quickly and adjust quickly, that made the system work.

GM's assembly lines began to suffer the statistical inevitability of additive failure rates of machinery; roving teams of technicians became the norm to keep everything running. A product line changeover took weeks, months, as each robot had to be re-programmed, and then the whole assembly line reconfigured to fit the needs of the robots.

The analogy is not a perfect fit by any means, but it poses an interesting question. The amount of capital tied up in enabling the movement of a single 100 car train is enormous. Is there really a savings if the operating efficiency of the train deteriorates by 5% or 10% as the result of crew cuts? Does the additive or cumulative effect of inefficiencies cascade through the system causing or increasing congestion? Could operating efficiency be improved by adding crew?

First, the use of robotics for assembly line work was in in infancy in the 70's, so GM didn't have the option of retiring robots. Not sure what point you're trying to make with that statement.

The "costs increase" had more to do with pension payments and existing employee contracts than the changeover to robotics, so again, not sure what point you're trying to make.

Robotics in assembly line work don't operate without human supervision and programming. There are still assembly workers on the production floors of GM and Toyota (and others) plants, so no, GM did NOT replace people with machinery of high capitol needs. People are still there, just not as many, but more in proportion to the number of vehicles being produced, just like the Toyota plants (to use your example).

Would LOVE to know where you got the fact that "GM's assembly lines began to suffer the statistical inevitability of additive failure rates of machinery; roving teams of technicians became the norm to keep everything running." and why this would be different than the Toyota plants. Did Toyota buy or build better robots than GM? Or that GM's problems would not have happened with manual assembly line work rather than robotics?

The analogy is "not a perfect fit," it doesn't fit at all. You're back to comparing production line work to transportation work, which as I recall, you said wasn't a valid comparison.

[MichaelSol]

Well actually, it was from a seminar by a retired GM VP I attended in March.

The point was that GM tried to shoot past Toyota; Toyota relied nowhere near as much on robots as GM.

Toyota looked at its employees as part of the solution; and capital spending as a way to support employee productivity. GM was driven by this idea that the employees were the problem, and that capital spending was the way "past" that problem.

US Railroads have embraced much the same GM philosophy the past 20 years.

Hence the Thread title.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Well actually, it was from a seminar by a retired GM VP I attended in March.

The point was that GM tried to shoot past Toyota; Toyota relied nowhere near as much on robots as GM.

Toyota looked at its employees as part of the solution; and capital spending as a way to support employee productivity. GM was driven by this idea that the employees were the problem, and that capital spending was the way "past" that problem.

US Railroads have embraced much the same GM philosophy the past 20 years.

Hence the Thread title.

In what way? Did railroads lay off workers and replace them with robots?

"Toyota relied nowhere near as much on robots as GM." Would like to know where that came from.

Toyota was starting to gain market share at this point in time, GM (as well as other US car manufacturers) was losing it. It would make more sense that GM would lay off employees and modernize production methods with robotics and other changes to enhance efficiency. At this time, Japanese auto makers were embracing the Deming (sp?) philosophy of management, which had nothing to do with keeping employees on the payroll that weren't needed to do the job. It had to do with listening to employee's ideas of how to get a job done the best way. It took longer for the management of US manufacturer's to let go of what they perceved to be the decision authority (or admitting that the person doing the job might know how to do it better than somebody that read about it in college). Machinery changes, and yes, robotics, were part of this change.

"The point was that GM tried to shoot past Toyota," is kind of stating the obvious. Any company that's on top will fight tooth and nail to stay there. Even making decisions and business moves that, in retrospect, weren't the best way to accompli***hat.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Well actually, it was from a seminar by a retired GM VP I attended in March.

The point was that GM tried to shoot past Toyota; Toyota relied nowhere near as much on robots as GM.

Toyota looked at its employees as part of the solution; and capital spending as a way to support employee productivity. GM was driven by this idea that the employees were the problem, and that capital spending was the way "past" that problem.

US Railroads have embraced much the same GM philosophy the past 20 years.

Hence the Thread title.

In what way? Did railroads lay off workers and replace them with robots?

I think the average reader will understand the point.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Well actually, it was from a seminar by a retired GM VP I attended in March.

The point was that GM tried to shoot past Toyota; Toyota relied nowhere near as much on robots as GM.

Toyota looked at its employees as part of the solution; and capital spending as a way to support employee productivity. GM was driven by this idea that the employees were the problem, and that capital spending was the way "past" that problem.

US Railroads have embraced much the same GM philosophy the past 20 years.

Hence the Thread title.

In what way? Did railroads lay off workers and replace them with robots?

I think the average reader will understand the point.

Maybe in your myopic world.

[txhighballer]

In many ways,FRED could be considered a robot of sorts.........but the basic question has not yet been answered. I believe a crew working with an intuitive management would increase productivity....I'm not saying that we should go back to four or five man crews,but there are some gains you would have with larger crews and the bottom line is.......more efficient crews equal more cars moved in less time,increasing capacity.
Crew districts are another issue. The Santa Fe had always had pretty big crew districts and in some places the local work was done on an out one way,back the next type of service. The problem they have now is crews going dead on these longer districts and having to be dogcaught by another crew who by the time they get to the stranded train,has perhaps 8-9 hours to work. The caught crew is still on duty until they reach their tie up point.......then they take 10 hours rest. then the cycle repeats again. IMHO,this is an issue that also needs to be revisited. In the current state of affairs,the crew districts are too long. I say this because I have experienced this first hand,and it's a cycle repeated each and every day. none of this adds to efficiency or productivity and the freight isn't being delivered timely.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Well, if railroads had continued to increase max operating speeds after the 1930's (wherein 100 mph passenger operations, even a few fast freights, were getting down the tracks faster than any corresponding highway vehicle) and let the natural technology to it's logical evolution, maybe those four man crews would have been more productive than the two man crews today. Granted, the unions still would have prefered limited crew districts like the 100 mile day, and conversely the railroads would still be pusing for one man crews even with 50 mph or 75 mph average velocities, but think about this in terms of railroad productivity.

For somebody that has a bookeeping background, you continue to amaze me with your lack of basic math skills. The points were the crews were changed were based on a given track district, ie. number of miles. If the train speed is increased, they will cover that district faster (as in less hours on the road) and the crew will be on duty for less hours for the same pay, reducing their productivity.

You even show less ability when you stated: "Granted, the unions still would have prefered limited crew districts like the 100 mile day" showing you realized there was a crew district limit.

Maybe you should defer these type statements to someone that actually has some economics experience.

Maybe you should learn to read, TD. The context of the statement refering to crew districts and reduced crews is of the past tense, and refers to the divergent desires of the two parties. It is not meant as a variable inclusion of the primary point, namely a 4 man crew covering 600 miles is more productive than a two man crew covering 200 miles.

Instead of trying to *increase* the bottom line by slashing crews, the railroads would have been better served increasing the average velocity to improve customer relations and increase business.

I doubt a single rail worker layoff ever resulted in any increased business.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Well, if railroads had continued to increase max operating speeds after the 1930's (wherein 100 mph passenger operations, even a few fast freights, were getting down the tracks faster than any corresponding highway vehicle) and let the natural technology to it's logical evolution, maybe those four man crews would have been more productive than the two man crews today. Granted, the unions still would have prefered limited crew districts like the 100 mile day, and conversely the railroads would still be pusing for one man crews even with 50 mph or 75 mph average velocities, but think about this in terms of railroad productivity.

For somebody that has a bookeeping background, you continue to amaze me with your lack of basic math skills. The points were the crews were changed were based on a given track district, ie. number of miles. If the train speed is increased, they will cover that district faster (as in less hours on the road) and the crew will be on duty for less hours for the same pay, reducing their productivity.

You even show less ability when you stated: "Granted, the unions still would have prefered limited crew districts like the 100 mile day" showing you realized there was a crew district limit.

Maybe you should defer these type statements to someone that actually has some economics experience.

Maybe you should learn to read, TD. The context of the statement refering to crew districts and reduced crews is of the past tense, and refers to the divergent desires of the two parties. It is not meant as a variable inclusion of the primary point, namely a 4 man crew covering 600 miles is more productive than a two man crew covering 200 miles.

Instead of trying to *increase* the bottom line by slashing crews, the railroads would have been better served increasing the average velocity to improve customer relations and increase business.

I doubt a single rail worker layoff ever resulted in any increased business.

And you should read what you typed. You said that increasing speed would increase productivity. However, if you don't increase the length of the crew districts, you're still moving a train over a crew district and paying the crew a days wages to do it. The crew would love this as they would be working less actual hours for a days pay, but what would the railroad be getting for their investment in improved infrastructure? The labor costs won't change, it will still cost the same to move the train the 100 miles or however long the crew district is. It still makes no difference whether it's a decision of mangament or an agreement with the unions, the crew district size has to change before the speed increase will make a real difference on the bottom line. One factor being changed will have little difference, it has to be a combination of factors to make the difference noticeable.

[Limitedclear]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Well, if railroads had continued to increase max operating speeds after the 1930's (wherein 100 mph passenger operations, even a few fast freights, were getting down the tracks faster than any corresponding highway vehicle) and let the natural technology to it's logical evolution, maybe those four man crews would have been more productive than the two man crews today. Granted, the unions still would have prefered limited crew districts like the 100 mile day, and conversely the railroads would still be pusing for one man crews even with 50 mph or 75 mph average velocities, but think about this in terms of railroad productivity.

For somebody that has a bookeeping background, you continue to amaze me with your lack of basic math skills. The points were the crews were changed were based on a given track district, ie. number of miles. If the train speed is increased, they will cover that district faster (as in less hours on the road) and the crew will be on duty for less hours for the same pay, reducing their productivity.

You even show less ability when you stated: "Granted, the unions still would have prefered limited crew districts like the 100 mile day" showing you realized there was a crew district limit.

Maybe you should defer these type statements to someone that actually has some economics experience.

Or perhaps some railroading experience...or both...

LC

[Limitedclear]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by txhighballer

Since the UTU has been forced to walk away from the national negotiations,I have been struck over the years as to how railroad management has been so keen on reducing crew size,saying this will save them money. Well,I wonder if it has in the long run. The elimination of cabooses,the extra brakeman,longer crew districts.how much has it really saved the railroads and how much productivity did they gain or lose? I submit,admittedly with no hard proof,that the gains were marginal and if there were any,one time gains. True if you have more people you spend more in crew costs,but what about that yard job with one less man? What about that brakeman that now has to walk 100 cars from the locomotive to the end to hang a FRED? Or perform an air test in an outlying terminal? It would have been easier if you had a man walking from the back,meet you in the middle,then returning to your respective positions on the train. How many man hours,track time,fuel do you waste with these type of operations day after day,year after year? I look forward to your responses.

Interesting points.

GM did something like this back in the 1970s. Get rid of employees. Toyota has robots? We'll show the Japanese (and the UAW) a thing or two about robots.

So, there's a documentary showing a beaming Roger Smith touring one of the new heavily roboted GM plants -- Lordstown, if I recall correctly.

The results? Strangest thing. Efficiency dropped. Costs increased.

What GM had done was replace people with high capital needs -- machinery. The problem was, the machinery couldn't think. Instead of people, whose learning curves improved with experience, the machines were in a constant state of degradation -- their performance over time deteriorated from wear and tear. Quality deteriorated. GM's reputation went in the dumpster (although by no means due to this single reason, Chevy engines in Cadillacs and diesel engines that blew up). This was exactly the opposite of humans.

Toyota had used robots in close association with people to help people do better jobs. Toyota could change production lines quickly because, ultimtely, it was people, and their ability to learn quickly and adjust quickly, that made the system work.

GM's assembly lines began to suffer the statistical inevitability of additive failure rates of machinery; roving teams of technicians became the norm to keep everything running. A product line changeover took weeks, months, as each robot had to be re-programmed, and then the whole assembly line reconfigured to fit the needs of the robots.

The analogy is not a perfect fit by any means, but it poses an interesting question. The amount of capital tied up in enabling the movement of a single 100 car train is enormous. Is there really a savings if the operating efficiency of the train deteriorates by 5% or 10% as the result of crew cuts? Does the additive or cumulative effect of inefficiencies cascade through the system causing or increasing congestion? Could operating efficiency be improved by adding crew?

This example has nothing to do with railroads and the parallel doesn't come close to fitting. Nice try...

LC

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by txhighballer

In many ways,FRED could be considered a robot of sorts.........but the basic question has not yet been answered. I believe a crew working with an intuitive management would increase productivity....I'm not saying that we should go back to four or five man crews,but there are some gains you would have with larger crews and the bottom line is.......more efficient crews equal more cars moved in less time,increasing capacity.
Crew districts are another issue. The Santa Fe had always had pretty big crew districts and in some places the local work was done on an out one way,back the next type of service. The problem they have now is crews going dead on these longer districts and having to be dogcaught by another crew who by the time they get to the stranded train,has perhaps 8-9 hours to work. The caught crew is still on duty until they reach their tie up point.......then they take 10 hours rest. then the cycle repeats again. IMHO,this is an issue that also needs to be revisited. In the current state of affairs,the crew districts are too long. I say this because I have experienced this first hand,and it's a cycle repeated each and every day. none of this adds to efficiency or productivity and the freight isn't being delivered timely.

The first step here is you'd have to define "efficient crew," as well as how many are necessary to make up a crew. Then you'd need to define why a crew needs to "dogcatch" in the middle of a crew district. Backup at the terminals causing the trains to backup onto the mainline? Then this type thing will domino, as the UP found out big time after they took over the SP. Unfortunately, one thing Dave won't admit is that trains, even moving faster between terminals, will not increase overall speed if the terminals can't handle the volume of trains, or if through trains don't have the option of bypassing the terminal. Both of these problems need infrastructure changes at or around the terminal to solve the problem of low overall speed. Without addressing the real cause of the slowdown, you're not going to change anything no matter how much money you throw at it.

[Limitedclear]

QUOTE: Originally posted by txhighballer

If you had a 100 mile crew district and you covered it in two hours,get paid for 8,then ready to head back the other way with another freight. Is that not more productive than take six hours to cover 100 miles,go get your rest,then back on the road?

EXCEPT, that isn't the way working the road is paid under most Railroad labor agreements. There are some limited exceptions on the old IC portions of the CN and I think UP may have a few as well. BTW, a basic day is 130 miles these days, not 100.

Crews on the road are paid by MILEAGE, not by the hour. Yard crews are paid by the hour. So, on a 206 mile district like the one I used to run intermodals over, a crew can make two basic days on a single trip. Make 3 trips a week and you have the reason many guys stick with the RR. So, the entire equation of crew cost changes over the road.

LC

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear
This example has nothing to do with railroads and the parallel doesn't come close to fitting. Nice try...

LC

The point was, the idea of simply getting rid of employees as a means of "enhancing" efficiency, and increasing capital expenditures to compensate for the loss of people, without a careful regard for the consequences. GM and Toyota offered contrasting examples of the "idea" that employees are the "problem" with that bottom line.

Of course that wouldn't have anything to do with railroads ....

Of course not.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear
This example has nothing to do with railroads and the parallel doesn't come close to fitting. Nice try...

LC

The point was, the idea of simply getting rid of employees as a means of "enhancing" efficiency, and increasing capital expenditures to compensate for the loss of people, without a careful regard for the consequences. GM and Toyota offered contrasting examples of the "idea" that employees are the "problem" with that bottom line.

Of course that wouldn't have anything to do with railroads ....

Of course not.

So you're going to compare ANY industry the EVER laid off employees to the railroad.

Talk about a major stretch.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Well, if railroads had continued to increase max operating speeds after the 1930's (wherein 100 mph passenger operations, even a few fast freights, were getting down the tracks faster than any corresponding highway vehicle) and let the natural technology to it's logical evolution, maybe those four man crews would have been more productive than the two man crews today. Granted, the unions still would have prefered limited crew districts like the 100 mile day, and conversely the railroads would still be pusing for one man crews even with 50 mph or 75 mph average velocities, but think about this in terms of railroad productivity.

For somebody that has a bookeeping background, you continue to amaze me with your lack of basic math skills. The points were the crews were changed were based on a given track district, ie. number of miles. If the train speed is increased, they will cover that district faster (as in less hours on the road) and the crew will be on duty for less hours for the same pay, reducing their productivity.

You even show less ability when you stated: "Granted, the unions still would have prefered limited crew districts like the 100 mile day" showing you realized there was a crew district limit.

Maybe you should defer these type statements to someone that actually has some economics experience.

Maybe you should learn to read, TD. The context of the statement refering to crew districts and reduced crews is of the past tense, and refers to the divergent desires of the two parties. It is not meant as a variable inclusion of the primary point, namely a 4 man crew covering 600 miles is more productive than a two man crew covering 200 miles.

Instead of trying to *increase* the bottom line by slashing crews, the railroads would have been better served increasing the average velocity to improve customer relations and increase business.

I doubt a single rail worker layoff ever resulted in any increased business.

And you should read what you typed. You said that increasing speed would increase productivity. However, if you don't increase the length of the crew districts, you're still moving a train over a crew district and paying the crew a days wages to do it. The crew would love this as they would be working less actual hours for a days pay, but what would the railroad be getting for their investment in improved infrastructure? The labor costs won't change, it will still cost the same to move the train the 100 miles or however long the crew district is. It still makes no difference whether it's a decision of mangament or an agreement with the unions, the crew district size has to change before the speed increase will make a real difference on the bottom line. One factor being changed will have little difference, it has to be a combination of factors to make the difference noticeable.

Well, crew districts have expanded (used to be the 100 mile day, remember?), so I don't see how that is any kind of deterent to the quest of increasing productivity. I'm sure the unions, if faced with either reductions of crews or expansion of crew districts via higher speeds, would opt for the 4 man high speed crew district over the two man snail's pace crew district.

However, that is not the point. The point is that the railroads would have done better to increase average speeds with the crews they had, rather than simply reducing crews as some magic elixer for increasing the bottom line.

Increasing average speeds = increased business
Reducing crew size = no increase in business

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Well, if railroads had continued to increase max operating speeds after the 1930's (wherein 100 mph passenger operations, even a few fast freights, were getting down the tracks faster than any corresponding highway vehicle) and let the natural technology to it's logical evolution, maybe those four man crews would have been more productive than the two man crews today. Granted, the unions still would have prefered limited crew districts like the 100 mile day, and conversely the railroads would still be pusing for one man crews even with 50 mph or 75 mph average velocities, but think about this in terms of railroad productivity.

For somebody that has a bookeeping background, you continue to amaze me with your lack of basic math skills. The points were the crews were changed were based on a given track district, ie. number of miles. If the train speed is increased, they will cover that district faster (as in less hours on the road) and the crew will be on duty for less hours for the same pay, reducing their productivity.

You even show less ability when you stated: "Granted, the unions still would have prefered limited crew districts like the 100 mile day" showing you realized there was a crew district limit.

Maybe you should defer these type statements to someone that actually has some economics experience.

Maybe you should learn to read, TD. The context of the statement refering to crew districts and reduced crews is of the past tense, and refers to the divergent desires of the two parties. It is not meant as a variable inclusion of the primary point, namely a 4 man crew covering 600 miles is more productive than a two man crew covering 200 miles.

Instead of trying to *increase* the bottom line by slashing crews, the railroads would have been better served increasing the average velocity to improve customer relations and increase business.

I doubt a single rail worker layoff ever resulted in any increased business.

And you should read what you typed. You said that increasing speed would increase productivity. However, if you don't increase the length of the crew districts, you're still moving a train over a crew district and paying the crew a days wages to do it. The crew would love this as they would be working less actual hours for a days pay, but what would the railroad be getting for their investment in improved infrastructure? The labor costs won't change, it will still cost the same to move the train the 100 miles or however long the crew district is. It still makes no difference whether it's a decision of mangament or an agreement with the unions, the crew district size has to change before the speed increase will make a real difference on the bottom line. One factor being changed will have little difference, it has to be a combination of factors to make the difference noticeable.

Well, crew districts have expanded (used to be the 100 mile day, remember?), so I don't see how that is any kind of deterent to the quest of increasing productivity. I'm sure the unions, if faced with either reductions of crews or expansion of crew districts via higher speeds, would opt for the 4 man high speed crew district over the two man snail's pace crew district.

However, that is not the point. The point is that the railroads would have done better to increase average speeds with the crews they had, rather than simply reducing crews as some magic elixer for increasing the bottom line.

Increasing average speeds = increased business
Reducing crew size = no increase in business

From your very first line:
"if railroads had continued to increase max operating speeds after the 1930's"

Increasing max operating speed does not necessarily equal increasing average speed.

You can't even quote yourself correctly, let alone tell us what your two "formulas" above are based on.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Well, if railroads had continued to increase max operating speeds after the 1930's (wherein 100 mph passenger operations, even a few fast freights, were getting down the tracks faster than any corresponding highway vehicle) and let the natural technology to it's logical evolution, maybe those four man crews would have been more productive than the two man crews today. Granted, the unions still would have prefered limited crew districts like the 100 mile day, and conversely the railroads would still be pusing for one man crews even with 50 mph or 75 mph average velocities, but think about this in terms of railroad productivity.

For somebody that has a bookeeping background, you continue to amaze me with your lack of basic math skills. The points were the crews were changed were based on a given track district, ie. number of miles. If the train speed is increased, they will cover that district faster (as in less hours on the road) and the crew will be on duty for less hours for the same pay, reducing their productivity.

You even show less ability when you stated: "Granted, the unions still would have prefered limited crew districts like the 100 mile day" showing you realized there was a crew district limit.

Maybe you should defer these type statements to someone that actually has some economics experience.

Maybe you should learn to read, TD. The context of the statement refering to crew districts and reduced crews is of the past tense, and refers to the divergent desires of the two parties. It is not meant as a variable inclusion of the primary point, namely a 4 man crew covering 600 miles is more productive than a two man crew covering 200 miles.

Instead of trying to *increase* the bottom line by slashing crews, the railroads would have been better served increasing the average velocity to improve customer relations and increase business.

I doubt a single rail worker layoff ever resulted in any increased business.

And you should read what you typed. You said that increasing speed would increase productivity. However, if you don't increase the length of the crew districts, you're still moving a train over a crew district and paying the crew a days wages to do it. The crew would love this as they would be working less actual hours for a days pay, but what would the railroad be getting for their investment in improved infrastructure? The labor costs won't change, it will still cost the same to move the train the 100 miles or however long the crew district is. It still makes no difference whether it's a decision of mangament or an agreement with the unions, the crew district size has to change before the speed increase will make a real difference on the bottom line. One factor being changed will have little difference, it has to be a combination of factors to make the difference noticeable.

Well, crew districts have expanded (used to be the 100 mile day, remember?), so I don't see how that is any kind of deterent to the quest of increasing productivity. I'm sure the unions, if faced with either reductions of crews or expansion of crew districts via higher speeds, would opt for the 4 man high speed crew district over the two man snail's pace crew district.

However, that is not the point. The point is that the railroads would have done better to increase average speeds with the crews they had, rather than simply reducing crews as some magic elixer for increasing the bottom line.

Increasing average speeds = increased business
Reducing crew size = no increase in business

From your very first line:
"if railroads had continued to increase max operating speeds after the 1930's"

Increasing max operating speed does not necessarily equal increasing average speed.

You can't even quote yourself correctly, let alone tell us what your two "formulas" above are based on.

The only way increasing max operating speed would not result in increasing average speed (all other things staying constant) was if the RR's found a way to clog up the works somewhere else along the line.

The best way railroads can increase average velocity is if they can get faster sustained speeds between the bottlenecks. Usually, the sooner you get into a bottleneck, the sooner you'll get out, and the faster your overall interterminal speeds will be.

Taking a portion of a quote out of context is pretty lowball, but par for the course.

And the "formulas" as you call them are based on logic. Perhaps the "=" signs threw you off, thinking they are part of some mathematic calculations.

[gabe]

I don't think I can top the good points of greyhounds and LC.

However, one should not forget the importance of having fewer employees on the roster in general--to say nothing of individual trips. This is especially true when your employees can sue your employer in tort and health care costs are soaring through the ceiling.

Gabe

P.S. Assuming for a moment that no employees are being laid off, and railroads are letting retirement thin the ranks (I am told this was largely the case for caboses) I never understood why unions cared if railroads had 1 employee or a billion. I certainly understand why unions want to protect workers who are employed with them, but why do they care if NS hires 300 people next year or hires 500 people next year, but makes a higher profit with the former choice? I am also told rail safety continues to improve every year, to preempt that retort.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

I don't think I can top the good points of greyhounds and LC.

However, one should not forget the importance of having fewer employees on the roster in general--to say nothing of individual trips. This is especially true when your employees can sue your employer in tort and health care costs are soaring through the ceiling.

Gabe

P.S. Assuming for a moment that no employees are being laid off, and railroads are letting retirement thin the ranks (I am told this was largely the case for caboses) I never understood why unions cared if railroads had 1 employee or a billion. I certainly understand why unions want to protect workers who are employed with them, but why do they care if NS hires 300 people next year or hires 500 people next year, but makes a higher profit with the former choice? I am also told rail safety continues to improve every year, to preempt that retort.

The union honchos need the union dues. 500 new employees pay more dues than 300.

They could care less about the long term, the honchos B the old heads. Grab the money while they can by looting the companies then and head for a warm retirement in Florida. That young fella' they left behind with a wife and two kids don't make the union bosses no never mind.

The unions follow a strategy that promotes substitution of capital for labor. It works short term as long as long as they can "force" employment. In the long term it kills the industry. It's happened in railroads (now reversed), in steel, in coal (non union mines in Wyoming) and in autos.

Unions could really be a good thing, but they're political organizations that don't understand economics (Frank Boreman quote there) It's whoever is going to "get tough" with management that wins the election. And that isn't the guy who's looking out for his 28 year old member with two young kids to put through college. It's the guy who will preserve the status quo and get a pay bump wether the company can afford it or not.

It doesn't matter to the honcho is that 28 year old will be out of a job 15 years hence, because the honcho will be enjoying his own sunny retirement.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
The unions follow a strategy that promotes substitution of capital for labor.

Unions promote the substitution of labor for capital, but the point was clear.

Milwaukee challenged the UTU on the crew agreements. "We can't make it without two man crews." UTU said fine, we'll go out. Worth Smith said, "well, the Clerks killed the Rock Island. Milwaukee will last six days if there's a strike. Then the business will be gone and we'll never get it back."

MILW got the crew reduction.

That was the turning point for railroading.