Railroad Productivity Gains..an Illusion or real?

[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

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.

At least your first paragraph shows that you FINALLY got that part.

However, your second paragraph shows that you still don't have the concept of eliminating bottlenecks. Faster speeds between bottlenecks will simply increase the size of the bottleneck. If only a certain number of trains can get through that bottlencek in a given period of time, running them faster between these problem areas will just cause a bigger backup. Hence the term "bottleneck."

I didn't delete anything, the entire quote is there. I leave the "lowball" stuff to you.

I used the term "formula" (note the quotation marks) because you presented them as an absolute. I figured that you pulled that out of your butt rather than have something based on actual facts and/or figures.

[gabe]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 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.

Sadly, a turning point that obviously came too late for the Milwaukee Road employees who lost their jobs upon the collapse of the line.

Gabe

[Anonymous]

A point about crew size reductions: Such action didn't add any new business, but it also didn't take any business away, did it? Crew size reductions didn't cause lower average velocity. Maybe it increased terminal dwell time somewhat when having to walk the consist prior to departure, but nothing major. Did crew size reductions result in lower morale, which on the public face seemed to make rail crews disenfranchised to the railroad's business clients?

My point is the railroads seemed to be focussing all their energies to getting labor concessions, when they should have focussed their energies on approaching the theoretical speed advantage of rail vs highway. Expedient transport is a business draw, grumpy employees is a business repellent.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

A point about crew size reductions: Such action didn't add any new business, but it also didn't take any business away, did it? Crew size reductions didn't cause lower average velocity. Maybe it increased terminal dwell time somewhat when having to walk the consist prior to departure, but nothing major. Did crew size reductions result in lower morale, which on the public face seemed to make rail crews disenfranchised to the railroad's business clients?

My point is the railroads seemed to be focussing all their energies to getting labor concessions, when they should have focussed their energies on approaching the theoretical speed advantage of rail vs highway. Expedient transport is a business draw, grumpy employees is a business repellent.

So now we're back to the "didn't it" and "maybe" type statements. More guesswork from Dave.

Working for a company that's obviously ready to go belly up isn't exactly good for the morale, either. Which also explains why they didn't invest money into improvements for increasing speeds, they didn't have money for that, any more than they had money for excess crew members.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 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.

No.

Once again Mr. Sol conclusively demonstrates that he lacks a basic understanding of economics. He really doesn't understand this stuff. He reminds me of that Bill O'Riley guy on Fox News. Just as ignorant as he can be about economics, but adament and loud mouthed in his ignorance.

Anyway, as I said, union stragegy promotes the substitution of captial for labor. A famous labor leader who articulated this well was John L. Lewis of the United Mine Workers. He basically said he'd get the miners better pay and working conditions, but that their sons would have to find other work. Lewis knew that increasing the cost of labor would result in mechanization, the substituion of capital for labor.

The whole point of a union is to increase the money going to the workers through better paychecks, better/safer working conditions, paid time off, health care, etc. This makes the workers more expensive and the employers naturallly will use fewer workers. (That whole supply/demand thing that Sol doesn't understand). One way to use fewer workers is to replace them with capital (ie., mechanization). Another way is to produce less.

[youngengineer]

lets look at the root of the word efficency from the viewpoin of management.

effic = employee ency = destroy company

this would seem to sum up the outlook of management on the worker, if we could only figure out a way to get rid of all the employees, because they are the problem not bad management, this company would make soo much more money. Last time I checked the employees were the reason the compamy made money, that and a good product, and management was there to provide beauracracy and excuses.

The introduction of RCO operations did not make the railroad more efficent. The railroad was able to get rid of some employees therefore finding a money savings, but the terminals did not speed up, so therefore the railroad saved money but did not become more efficent. efficency is more than the cost the labor, it is the whole picture, therefore singling out the employees as the only means to a more efficent railroad is not seeing the larger picture. I understand that the accountants on this forum can only see dollars and cents, but there are trade offs to reduced crews.

while I am not an accountant and dont claim to be one I was once a manager and can see the picture from both sides, the employees are not entirely right and the management is not entirely right. I say get rid of a few top managers and see what happens, I bet no one would even notice there absence

thank you, just my 2 cents

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

QUOTE: Originally posted by 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.

No.

Once again Mr. Sol conclusively demonstrates that he lacks a basic understanding of economics. He really doesn't understand this stuff. He reminds me of that Bill O'Riley guy on Fox News. Just as ignorant as he can be about economics, but adament and loud mouthed in his ignorance.

Anyway, as I said, union stragegy promotes the substitution of captial for labor. A famous labor leader who articulated this well was John L. Lewis of the United Mine Workers. He basically said he'd get the miners better pay and working conditions, but that their sons would have to find other work. Lewis knew that increasing the cost of labor would result in mechanization, the substituion of capital for labor.

The whole point of a union is to increase the money going to the workers through better paychecks, better/safer working conditions, paid time off, health care, etc. This makes the workers more expensive and the employers naturallly will use fewer workers. (That whole supply/demand thing that Sol doesn't understand). One way to use fewer workers is to replace them with capital (ie., mechanization). Another way is to produce less.

Fine, except you said the exact opposite:

QUOTE: Original posted by greyhounds
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.

Your diatribe makes no sense if you really meant that unions were trying to substitute capital for labor, ie machines for workers. Then they wouldn't be "forcing" employment would they? They wouldn't be "killing the industry" in the long term would they?

In fact, if your convoluted effort to justify your mis-statement was true, then of course unions and management were on the same page: mechanize -- the exact opposite of "forcing employment" and presumably what was necessary to avoid "killing the industry."

However, that is clearly not what you said.

Perhaps it is not other people's lack of understanding of economics that is really at the heart of your indignation, but your own apparent inability to understand your own statements.

[sanvtoman]

I worked on a track gang in the 80s so i know the carriers saved money on labor when they mechanized. As far a trainmen go we always had 5 man crews and all jobs were considered yard jobs.So to my way of thinking 2 men on a road job with little switching is a good idea. As far as a yard job 3 men is a good number ,anything less on a yard job and your crew savings might get eaten up in "OT" costs. Less crewman in the yard and lots of extra walking.If you have 2 people working the yard lead and your kicking cars if 1 rolls back at you someone has to run to tie it down.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol
[brFine, except you said the exact opposite:

QUOTE: Original posted by greyhounds
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.

Your diatribe makes no sense if you really meant that unions were trying to substitute capital for labor, ie machines for workers. Then they wouldn't be "forcing" employment would they? They wouldn't be "killing the industry" in the long term would they?

In fact, if your convoluted effort to justify your mis-statement was true, then of course unions and management were on the same page: mechanize -- the exact opposite of "forcing employment" and presumably what was necessary to avoid "killing the industry."

However, that is clearly not what you said.

Perhaps it is not other people's lack of understanding of economics that is really at the heart of your indignation, but your own apparent inability to understand your own statements.

See how flustered and confused Mr. Sol gets when he tries to talk about things like labor economics, accounting - things like that that he really doesn't understand.

First, I've consistantly said that the stratigies of labor unions promote the substitution of capital for labor. Anyone with a brain would see that that is true. (Sol seems very confused by it.) Unions make labor more expensive - that's what they're supposed to do. As labor becomes more expensive, the employers will seek to use less of it, either by substituting capital or reducing production.

Sometimes unions have been able to "force" employment by requiring a certain number of workers to be hired when there was little or no productive work for those workers to do. This will kill an enterprise over time.

Those are straightforward, simple, concepts that I think everyone but Sol can understand.
He sure seems confused. Look at this statement of his:

QUOTE:
Your diatribe makes no sense if you really meant that unions were trying to substitute capital for labor, ie machines for workers. Then they wouldn't be "forcing" employment would they? They wouldn't be "killing the industry" in the long term would they

This is nuts. Sol, the unions aren't trying to substitute capital for labor. The result of their actions will be substituion of capital for labor by the employer. The fact that you can't understand the difference speaks volumes about your well demonstrated inability to process information in a logical manner.

[MichaelSol]

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

Unions want to "promote" as much employment as they can, to collect union dues, for political power, etc. They follow a strategy of strikes, collective bargaining, legislation and litigation to achieve that goal.

Now, if what you meant to say was that their strategy backfired, and that it actually resulted in achieving the opposite goal than what they intended to "promote", then you would have had to say so, in order for it to mean so.

[n012944]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
Increasing average speeds = increased business

Santa Fe tried that with the Super C. Didn't work too well. Now if railroads continue to work at reducing dwell time, the average speeds will keep increasing somewhat. However to make large gains in speed-i.e. higher top speeds, is not that economical since you must pour on the horsepower to be able to get up to, and maintain higher speeds.

Bert

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

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

Unions want to "promote" as much employment as they can, to collect union dues, for political power, etc. They follow a strategy of strikes, collective bargaining, legislation and litigation to achieve that goal.

Now, if what you meant to say was that their strategy backfired, and that it actually resulted in achieving the opposite goal than what they intended to "promote", then you would have had to say so, in order for it to mean so.

You two are arguing over the two different uses of the term "labor."

Greyhounds is using it as meaning the physical act of accomplishing work, as in "he labored hard to get the job done."

Michael is using it as meaning a group of workers, as in "not management."

Look back over your exchange above (not just this quote) and see if you agree.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

A point about crew size reductions: Such action didn't add any new business, but it also didn't take any business away, did it? Crew size reductions didn't cause lower average velocity. Maybe it increased terminal dwell time somewhat when having to walk the consist prior to departure, but nothing major. Did crew size reductions result in lower morale, which on the public face seemed to make rail crews disenfranchised to the railroad's business clients?

My point is the railroads seemed to be focussing all their energies to getting labor concessions, when they should have focussed their energies on approaching the theoretical speed advantage of rail vs highway. Expedient transport is a business draw, grumpy employees is a business repellent.

So now we're back to the "didn't it" and "maybe" type statements. More guesswork from Dave.

The "didn't it" and "maybe" statements were put forth with the hope that someone else might want to engage in this conversation.

[sigh]

QUOTE:
Working for a company that's obviously ready to go belly up isn't exactly good for the morale, either. Which also explains why they didn't invest money into improvements for increasing speeds, they didn't have money for that, any more than they had money for excess crew members.

Again with the claim that all the rail companies were ready to go belly up if they didn't reduce crew sizes. Not so. The crew size reductions did not add one cent to the profit line, and without increased profits you will go belly up. The idea of trying to achieve financial success by cutting out labor and tearing out trackage is a fool's dream. If anything, the latter two reasons are why the railroads almost went "belly up" if indeed that was the case as you infer. Neither action adds one red cent to the profit line. On the contrary, lopping off assets such as trackage and labor means you are getting rid of the key "multiplier" components that expand business reach and thus increases profit.

We've all read enough of how railroad management seemed to prefer getting out of railroading rather than making the type of revenue generating investments necessary for success. One cannot equate this irrational behaviour with general business guidelines.

[samfp1943]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

QUOTE: Originally posted by 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.

Sadly, a turning point that obviously came too late for the Milwaukee Road employees who lost their jobs upon the collapse of the line.

Gabe

It seems to me that the key in this is what Gabe alluded to, the lack of a cohesive industry plan, or agreed upon strategies for dealing with the inevitable ebb and flow of business in the railroad"system" of the US [ and now, CANADIAN rails,too]. Admittedly, it would be very hard, maybe impossible, to get American Railroads to agree on any kind of a mutually beneficial systemic operational plan. Most likely, it would be like herding cats to get the railroads and the labor unions to redraw old relationships; instead of cobbling onto agreements that date back over one hundred years. Ultimately, I think, that is what is going to have to happen to keep the system from flying apart or becoming unmanageable.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

A point about crew size reductions: Such action didn't add any new business, but it also didn't take any business away, did it? Crew size reductions didn't cause lower average velocity. Maybe it increased terminal dwell time somewhat when having to walk the consist prior to departure, but nothing major. Did crew size reductions result in lower morale, which on the public face seemed to make rail crews disenfranchised to the railroad's business clients?

My point is the railroads seemed to be focussing all their energies to getting labor concessions, when they should have focussed their energies on approaching the theoretical speed advantage of rail vs highway. Expedient transport is a business draw, grumpy employees is a business repellent.

So now we're back to the "didn't it" and "maybe" type statements. More guesswork from Dave.

The "didn't it" and "maybe" statements were put forth with the hope that someone else might want to engage in this conversation.

[sigh]

QUOTE:
Working for a company that's obviously ready to go belly up isn't exactly good for the morale, either. Which also explains why they didn't invest money into improvements for increasing speeds, they didn't have money for that, any more than they had money for excess crew members.

Again with the claim that all the rail companies were ready to go belly up if they didn't reduce crew sizes. Not so. The crew size reductions did not add one cent to the profit line, and without increased profits you will go belly up. The idea of trying to achieve financial success by cutting out labor and tearing out trackage is a fool's dream. If anything, the latter two reasons are why the railroads almost went "belly up" if indeed that was the case as you infer. Neither action adds one red cent to the profit line. On the contrary, lopping off assets such as trackage and labor means you are getting rid of the key "multiplier" components that expand business reach and thus increases profit.

We've all read enough of how railroad management seemed to prefer getting out of railroading rather than making the type of revenue generating investments necessary for success. One cannot equate this irrational behaviour with general business guidelines.

And again you try to misquote what I said to lead to your own misguided conclusions. Railroads needed to reduce costs. Reduction of the number of people on the payroll was ONE of the ways they did this.

The profit line wasn't one they were concerned with, they didn't have one. They were trying to reduce the loss line. Only a fool of a company would hang on to assets that are no longer producing the profits to even offset the cost of having them. Now I suppose you'll tell us that no company ever sold off or abandoned a factory they no longer needed. Or tore it down for the scrap value of it. Or laid off employees during a business downturn. Only a fool keeps paying these costs when they no longer are producing.

Unfortunately, you're looking at the events of 30+ years ago with the knowledge of today, but since you're so young, I guess that's understandable. Business decisions are made with the knowledge at the time the decisions were made. To invest in infrastructure, the company has to 1) be convinced that there is a future for the business and 2) have the money to invest in such improvements. You can't spend what you don't have, and you can't get loans without convincing the people giving you the loan that they'll get their money back, with interest. But I guess only someone versed in economics would know this.

[edblysard]

The basics of moving freight by train is still the same as it was a century ago.
The steel wheel on steel rail was one of those lucky inventions that came along at just the precise time to alter the world, and just like powered flight, the basic principal remains the same, no matter if its a steam or diesel locomotive, or a Biplane or 747.

The efficency is already there, even with the crews cut to a bare minimun.
We do our job, and do it better than we have in a long time, with less people.

What has, and will continue to make a big difference is how we gather and process the information needed to make good business decisions, and weather we are willing to change the culture of railroad managment to adapt to this improvement in technology.

RCLs wont make that big a impact towards profit, I know, with a engineer and a switchman, I can out switch any RCL operator, and earn my railroad more money, even though the carrier is paying three employees, instead of one, due to the sheer volume of cars I can move in a shift.

But all of that means nothing, and does no good, if we cant meet the business expectations of our customers.
And to do that, we have to get the business, and then service the customer in a manner that profits both the railroad, the shippers, and the railroader.
We have to do away with the dual cultures involved with railroading, the us(labor) versus them(management) style that currently influnces every business decision we make.
Without a mutually benifical contract, that ties the profit of the railroad into the productivity of the T&E employees, and shares the profit with them also, along with allowing the employees to participate in the decision making process, we are stuck where we currently are, a industry with hugh growth pontential, choking on our inability to change our thinking and decision making process.

In my entire life, I have never been around so many middle aged adolescents, both in suits and in overalls.

If your definenition of heyday was when the general public looked upon railroads as a partner in the transportation of people and goods, and as a major employeer, then yes, the 50s were the heyday.
If, on the other hand, by heyday you mean the volume of cars moved, and the amount of profit made, then today is as good as it gets, until we reconize and begin to use the technology that can make up even more productive.

The class 1 have already started, and are changing the way they think about our industry.
They no longer try to capture local business, but instead are concentrating on the bulk train, grain and coal, intermodel and long haul freight aspect.

They want local and regional ralroads to come back, it relives them of the burden of servicing directly the shipper, its cheaper and faster for them to consolidate their business in super yards, and leave the local switching to local railroads.
I know, I work for a terminal railroad, and we are moving more cars for our members lines than ever before.

(cheated, and copied from another thread, but still applies)
Ed

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

A point about crew size reductions: Such action didn't add any new business, but it also didn't take any business away, did it? Crew size reductions didn't cause lower average velocity. Maybe it increased terminal dwell time somewhat when having to walk the consist prior to departure, but nothing major. Did crew size reductions result in lower morale, which on the public face seemed to make rail crews disenfranchised to the railroad's business clients?

My point is the railroads seemed to be focussing all their energies to getting labor concessions, when they should have focussed their energies on approaching the theoretical speed advantage of rail vs highway. Expedient transport is a business draw, grumpy employees is a business repellent.

So now we're back to the "didn't it" and "maybe" type statements. More guesswork from Dave.

The "didn't it" and "maybe" statements were put forth with the hope that someone else might want to engage in this conversation.

[sigh]

QUOTE:
Working for a company that's obviously ready to go belly up isn't exactly good for the morale, either. Which also explains why they didn't invest money into improvements for increasing speeds, they didn't have money for that, any more than they had money for excess crew members.

Again with the claim that all the rail companies were ready to go belly up if they didn't reduce crew sizes. Not so. The crew size reductions did not add one cent to the profit line, and without increased profits you will go belly up. The idea of trying to achieve financial success by cutting out labor and tearing out trackage is a fool's dream. If anything, the latter two reasons are why the railroads almost went "belly up" if indeed that was the case as you infer. Neither action adds one red cent to the profit line. On the contrary, lopping off assets such as trackage and labor means you are getting rid of the key "multiplier" components that expand business reach and thus increases profit.

We've all read enough of how railroad management seemed to prefer getting out of railroading rather than making the type of revenue generating investments necessary for success. One cannot equate this irrational behaviour with general business guidelines.

And again you try to misquote what I said to lead to your own misguided conclusions.

Pot calling the kettle black again.

QUOTE: Railroads needed to reduce costs. Reduction of the number of people on the payroll was ONE of the ways they did this.

The profit line wasn't one they were concerned with, they didn't have one. They were trying to reduce the loss line. Only a fool of a company would hang on to assets that are no longer producing the profits to even offset the cost of having them. Now I suppose you'll tell us that no company ever sold off or abandoned a factory they no longer needed. Or tore it down for the scrap value of it. Or laid off employees during a business downturn. Only a fool keeps paying these costs when they no longer are producing.

Unfortunately, you're looking at the events of 30+ years ago with the knowledge of today, but since you're so young, I guess that's understandable. Business decisions are made with the knowledge at the time the decisions were made. To invest in infrastructure, the company has to 1) be convinced that there is a future for the business and 2) have the money to invest in such improvements. You can't spend what you don't have, and you can't get loans without convincing the people giving you the loan that they'll get their money back, with interest. But I guess only someone versed in economics would know this.

Again, reducing "costs" does not add one red cent to the profit line. And if you are looking at assets as "costs", then you are in big trouble as a business. Just because the railroads failed to utilize their assets such as labor and trackage doesn't mean those assets were no longer assets, it just means someone in management wasn't doing their job.

The railroads did a miserable job of asset utilization. Perhaps the worst in the history of US business.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard


They want local and regional ralroads to come back, it relives them of the burden of servicing directly the shipper, its cheaper and faster for them to consolidate their business in super yards, and leave the local switching to local railroads.
I know, I work for a terminal railroad, and we are moving more cars for our members lines than ever before.

(cheated, and copied from another thread, but still applies)
Ed

Yes, and there is a good, valid reason for this. It's called "Descrepancy of Size" and it's a good reason for a middle man.

Just as you don't buy your personal car from Ford, or detergent from Proctor and Gamble, a smaller shipper won't be dealing with the BNSF. The size difference is too great. If Ford tried to sell its cars directly to the public they'd fall all over themselves. And if P&G tried to market soap directly to the consumers we'd all be pretty dirty.

I think we're going to see the emergence of 3rd party operations to serve the smaller shippers. Such operations will bridge the size gap between the large railroad enterprises and the smaller shippers, just as the car dealers bridge the size gap between Ford and the individual customer. Such operations will not be limited to trackage spun off to a short line or a regional, but will operate on major railroad trackage.

There are underutilized lines ripe for this now - Garden City, KS - Kansas City comes to mind.

[Limitedclear]

QUOTE: Originally posted by samfp1943

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

QUOTE: Originally posted by 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.

Sadly, a turning point that obviously came too late for the Milwaukee Road employees who lost their jobs upon the collapse of the line.

Gabe

It seems to me that the key in this is what Gabe alluded to, the lack of a cohesive industry plan, or agreed upon strategies for dealing with the inevitable ebb and flow of business in the railroad"system" of the US [ and now, CANADIAN rails,too]. Admittedly, it would be very hard, maybe impossible, to get American Railroads to agree on any kind of a mutually beneficial systemic operational plan. Most likely, it would be like herding cats to get the railroads and the labor unions to redraw old relationships; instead of cobbling onto agreements that date back over one hundred years. Ultimately, I think, that is what is going to have to happen to keep the system from flying apart or becoming unmanageable.

In other words, if all the railroads got together and formed a single way of doing business and coordinated rates...hmm there's a name for that, oh yeah, a MONOPOLY...sorry, won't work in the good ol' USA...

LC

[Limitedclear]

FM is still stuck on the whole cutting crews doesn't add to the top line...

HELLO, it's not about the TOP line its the BOTTOM LINE that counts. Of course cutting costs goes to the bottom line. For a given top line revenue, subtracting costs is how one reaches the bottom line.

Cutting off personnel that are not needed in the efficient operation of the railroad is the smart way of doing business. Locomotive Firemen were nice, the extra brakeman and flagman were nice too, but with the elimination of the caboose and advent of FRED to handle the rear along with auotmatic detectors and roller bearings the additional people simply were no longer necessary. Looking back farther, many more brakemen were eliminated by the introduction of the Westinghouse Air Brake.

Employees are the number one cost on the railroad. Railroad employees are more expensive due to generally high wages in the industry plus generous benefits including Railroad Retirement and excellent health coverage largely company funded made necessary by, among other reasons the application of the Federal Employers Liability Act and its betheren. Cutting employees creates a significant cost saving. Of course, cutting employees is not recommended when such employees are necessary to the efficient operation of the railroad and cutting remployees should be accomplished by attrition where possible.

Adding to the top line happens with continued marketing and efficient operations working hand in hand. The cost savings achieved by whatever means should be applied, at least in some part to increasing the efficiency of operations and system rehabilitation and expansion costs. By plowing some of the earnings back and making smart capital investments the value of the company to sharehaolders and management and the quality of service to customers increases.

LC

[gabe]

On a side note--and please let it be understood that I know relatively nothing about the business--I have always wondered why railroads didn't hire more salespersons and pay them largely on a commission basis.

Short line and regional railroads have been able to demonstrate that there is business out there when you have people who creatively beat the bush. I often thought a more agressive sales force might serve railroads better.

I realize a lot of the type of business this would generate is the type you do not want on the transcon, but for secondary and regional railroads, I would think a larger, commission-driven sales force would be useful.

Just a thought,

Gabe

[Limitedclear]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

On a side note--and please let it be understood that I know relatively nothing about the business--I have always wondered why railroads didn't hire more salespersons and pay them largely on a commission basis.

Short line and regional railroads have been able to demonstrate that there is business out there when you have people who creatively beat the bush. I often thought a more agressive sales force might serve railroads better.

I realize a lot of the type of business this would generate is the type you do not want on the transcon, but for secondary and regional railroads, I would think a larger, commission-driven sales force would be useful.

Just a thought,

Gabe

It is quite difficult to use a commission only salesforce in railroading. In a business with razor tight margins it is easier for the larger railroads to bring the customers to them. As railroads have a relatively small universe of customers, since bulk material suppliers are small in number and intermodal is largely in the hands of a few major shipping lines and other large companies (UPS, large truckers and a few 3PL type organizations) and the rail payments system is designed to force the smaller railroads to price throgh the Class 1s it is easier to do it this way. Unfortunately, it tends to allow downsizing of the salaried sales force and turns many into glorified order takers and customer service problem solvers rather than true active salespeople...

This topic really rates a separate thread....

LC

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

FM is still stuck on the whole cutting crews doesn't add to the top line...

HELLO, it's not about the TOP line its the BOTTOM LINE that counts. Of course cutting costs goes to the bottom line. For a given top line revenue, subtracting costs is how one reaches the bottom line.

Cutting off personnel that are not needed in the efficient operation of the railroad is the smart way of doing business. Locomotive Firemen were nice, the extra brakeman and flagman were nice too, but with the elimination of the caboose and advent of FRED to handle the rear along with auotmatic detectors and roller bearings the additional people simply were no longer necessary. Looking back farther, many more brakemen were eliminated by the introduction of the Westinghouse Air Brake.

Employees are the number one cost on the railroad. Railroad employees are more expensive due to generally high wages in the industry plus generous benefits including Railroad Retirement and excellent health coverage largely company funded made necessary by, among other reasons the application of the Federal Employers Liability Act and its betheren. Cutting employees creates a significant cost saving. Of course, cutting employees is not recommended when such employees are necessary to the efficient operation of the railroad and cutting remployees should be accomplished by attrition where possible.

Adding to the top line happens with continued marketing and efficient operations working hand in hand. The cost savings achieved by whatever means should be applied, at least in some part to increasing the efficiency of operations and system rehabilitation and expansion costs. By plowing some of the earnings back and making smart capital investments the value of the company to sharehaolders and management and the quality of service to customers increases.

LC

Well, maybe if you understood the difference between cutting costs and cutting assets, you might understand what I am saying. Just lopping off labor and trackage without thinking through how and if such cuts will affect the ability to garner business is shear idiocy. Crew reductions did not do a thing for adding more business. It seems railroad management saw labor and operations as a constant rather than a dynamic.

If it takes twice as long to walk a consist prior to departure because the railroad eliminated the tail end crewman, then that means the customer's car will also take longer to get to where it's going. If the lack of a tail end crew means a rearward derailment won't be noticed for the next 20 miles until something really bad happens e.g. the car goes jackknife off the track, then the customers will experience yet another delay as the line ends up blocked for the next 48 hours.

I believe rail management made such cuts irrespective of any actual hands-on data to support such moves. It was more of a back-patting exercise for management to impress stockholders.

Did anyone at those stockholder meetings ever ask why management wouldn't work harder to get those trucks onto TOFC rather than complaining ad nauseum about how the truckers were taking the railroad's traffic?

Productivity gains occur through asset enrichment, not retrenchment.

[Limitedclear]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

FM is still stuck on the whole cutting crews doesn't add to the top line...

HELLO, it's not about the TOP line its the BOTTOM LINE that counts. Of course cutting costs goes to the bottom line. For a given top line revenue, subtracting costs is how one reaches the bottom line.

Cutting off personnel that are not needed in the efficient operation of the railroad is the smart way of doing business. Locomotive Firemen were nice, the extra brakeman and flagman were nice too, but with the elimination of the caboose and advent of FRED to handle the rear along with auotmatic detectors and roller bearings the additional people simply were no longer necessary. Looking back farther, many more brakemen were eliminated by the introduction of the Westinghouse Air Brake.

Employees are the number one cost on the railroad. Railroad employees are more expensive due to generally high wages in the industry plus generous benefits including Railroad Retirement and excellent health coverage largely company funded made necessary by, among other reasons the application of the Federal Employers Liability Act and its betheren. Cutting employees creates a significant cost saving. Of course, cutting employees is not recommended when such employees are necessary to the efficient operation of the railroad and cutting remployees should be accomplished by attrition where possible.

Adding to the top line happens with continued marketing and efficient operations working hand in hand. The cost savings achieved by whatever means should be applied, at least in some part to increasing the efficiency of operations and system rehabilitation and expansion costs. By plowing some of the earnings back and making smart capital investments the value of the company to sharehaolders and management and the quality of service to customers increases.

LC

Well, maybe if you understood the difference between cutting costs and cutting assets, you might understand what I am saying. Just lopping off labor and trackage without thinking through how and if such cuts will affect the ability to garner business is shear idiocy. Crew reductions did not do a thing for adding more business. It seems railroad management saw labor and operations as a constant rather than a dynamic.

If it takes twice as long to walk a consist prior to departure because the railroad eliminated the tail end crewman, then that means the customer's car will also take longer to get to where it's going. If the lack of a tail end crew means a rearward derailment won't be noticed for the next 20 miles until something really bad happens e.g. the car goes jackknife off the track, then the customers will experience yet another delay as the line ends up blocked for the next 48 hours.

I believe rail management made such cuts irrespective of any actual hands-on data to support such moves. It was more of a back-patting exercise for management to impress stockholders.

Did anyone at those stockholder meetings ever ask why management wouldn't work harder to get those trucks onto TOFC rather than complaining ad nauseum about how the truckers were taking the railroad's traffic?

Productivity gains occur through asset enrichment, not retrenchment.

I understand very well what assets are. I also understand that having too many idle assets results in a loss of those assets or losses through use of unececssary assets. The day of the rear end crew and cabooose is gone. The caboose was in its day the largest source of T&E employee injury claims. It can't be justified in the face of modern technological substitutes. You'd know that if you had worked on the railroad and experienced it yourself, but you haven't so it is beyond your comprehension.

Elimination of unecessary personnel is good management, not retrenchment. I don't advocate eliminating necessary jobs and I am not a proponent of one man crews or RCL, but all realistic means of reducing costs in the railroad industry must be explored.

Obviously, you have forgotten your own calls for reregulation. Reregulation will cap the upside for railroads at an unacceptable level making the need for efficiency greater not less. So perhaps reregulation isn't such a good idea after all FM??

LC

[edblysard]

Let’s see...
If I, as a conductor in 1960, am in a caboose, and have to walk from the rear to the head end, then back down to the caboose...or as a conductor in 2006 have to walk from the head end to the rear and back to the head end...yup, I can see how being at the rear makes it faster....

Anybody want to waste the time trying to explain to Dave why it is the conductor's sole responsibility, not a brakeman’s job...or why yards have carmen and car departments?
How about an initial terminal air test?
Want to waste time explaining to him what a walk set is, or what and when a simple set and release is done instead?
How about the standing cut four hour rule?
Air test slip anyone?
Or better yet, a rolling set and release, with the release on a reverse move, and why it is done?

And I hate them derailments that get dragged for 20 miles...specially the jack knife part...it's a lot more fun if they fishtail from side to side for a while!

See Dave, if you had ever experienced slack action from the rear of a train, or the unexpected hammering you get when a train goes into emergency, you would understand how riding in a caboose is the most dangerous place for a crew man to be.

Hey, how about all them clerks?
Like the ones who used to watch the TV monitor and hand write the inbound train lists?
Or the clerks who hand wrote the billing sheets, and the blocking sheets, or the ones who walked each track in the receiving yard, hand writing the lists?
And my favorite, the ones who walked each track in the switching yard, making lists and then going back to the yard office, and hand writing switching lists...man, that was super efficient...back in the late 70s, one of our five man yard crews switched 65 to 70 cars in 8 hours, seeing as how they were a bang up crew, knocking fire and all...

Of course now days, with only two clerks per shift, and my 3 man crew, we switch 60 cars before our first water/coffee break, about an hour to an hour and a half into our shift, so you can clearly see how "labor retrenchment" has destroyed the efficiency...

Then again, if you had half a clue as to how trains work, what they do and why, then you wouldn’t have written so many silly and useless trolling posts in the first place.

Ed

[zardoz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear
The caboose was in its day the largest source of T&E employee injury claims.
LC

Getting rid of the caboose sure made the engineer's life a lot easier. Running a train such that you do not injure the caboose crew required much more finesse than operating concerned only about damaging freight.

In addition, getting rid of the caboose also made getting rid of ALL of the fireman moot. Back in the days of REAL railroading, there is no way someone sitting in the conductor's seat could learn enough about how to run a train in only a year (with a few "student trips" thrown in to make it look good).

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

FM is still stuck on the whole cutting crews doesn't add to the top line...

HELLO, it's not about the TOP line its the BOTTOM LINE that counts. Of course cutting costs goes to the bottom line. For a given top line revenue, subtracting costs is how one reaches the bottom line.

Cutting off personnel that are not needed in the efficient operation of the railroad is the smart way of doing business. Locomotive Firemen were nice, the extra brakeman and flagman were nice too, but with the elimination of the caboose and advent of FRED to handle the rear along with auotmatic detectors and roller bearings the additional people simply were no longer necessary. Looking back farther, many more brakemen were eliminated by the introduction of the Westinghouse Air Brake.

Employees are the number one cost on the railroad. Railroad employees are more expensive due to generally high wages in the industry plus generous benefits including Railroad Retirement and excellent health coverage largely company funded made necessary by, among other reasons the application of the Federal Employers Liability Act and its betheren. Cutting employees creates a significant cost saving. Of course, cutting employees is not recommended when such employees are necessary to the efficient operation of the railroad and cutting remployees should be accomplished by attrition where possible.

Adding to the top line happens with continued marketing and efficient operations working hand in hand. The cost savings achieved by whatever means should be applied, at least in some part to increasing the efficiency of operations and system rehabilitation and expansion costs. By plowing some of the earnings back and making smart capital investments the value of the company to sharehaolders and management and the quality of service to customers increases.

LC

Well, maybe if you understood the difference between cutting costs and cutting assets, you might understand what I am saying. Just lopping off labor and trackage without thinking through how and if such cuts will affect the ability to garner business is shear idiocy. Crew reductions did not do a thing for adding more business. It seems railroad management saw labor and operations as a constant rather than a dynamic.

If it takes twice as long to walk a consist prior to departure because the railroad eliminated the tail end crewman, then that means the customer's car will also take longer to get to where it's going. If the lack of a tail end crew means a rearward derailment won't be noticed for the next 20 miles until something really bad happens e.g. the car goes jackknife off the track, then the customers will experience yet another delay as the line ends up blocked for the next 48 hours.

I believe rail management made such cuts irrespective of any actual hands-on data to support such moves. It was more of a back-patting exercise for management to impress stockholders.

Did anyone at those stockholder meetings ever ask why management wouldn't work harder to get those trucks onto TOFC rather than complaining ad nauseum about how the truckers were taking the railroad's traffic?

Productivity gains occur through asset enrichment, not retrenchment.

I understand very well what assets are. I also understand that having too many idle assets results in a loss of those assets or losses through use of unececssary assets. The day of the rear end crew and cabooose is gone. The caboose was in its day the largest source of T&E employee injury claims. It can't be justified in the face of modern technological substitutes. You'd know that if you had worked on the railroad and experienced it yourself, but you haven't so it is beyond your comprehension.

I am not suggesting a reintroduction of the caboose. And no, one doesn't have to have worked on the railroad to understand this, although it seems actually working for a railroad does something to the brain to make folks like you misinterpret what one is saying.

This is what I am saying - do not misinterpret this: Management made cuts in assets without regard to how those asset losses would affect the ability to grow the business.

QUOTE:
Elimination of unecessary personnel is good management, not retrenchment. I don't advocate eliminating necessary jobs and I am not a proponent of one man crews or RCL, but all realistic means of reducing costs in the railroad industry must be explored.

Is it good management to have to start hiring a lot of green crews to meet demand, when you had a pool of experienced crewmen available that you stupidly laid off for "productivity's" sake? Aren't experienced brakemen the logical choice for retraining into engineers and conductors?

QUOTE: Obviously, you have forgotten your own calls for reregulation. Reregulation will cap the upside for railroads at an unacceptable level making the need for efficiency greater not less. So perhaps reregulation isn't such a good idea after all FM??

LC

I have never once called for reregulation aka pre-Staggers. I have stated that I believe it is inevitable given the current uproar among US rail shippers.

What I have called for instead of pre-Staggers regulation is first total deregulation of the rail industry including some separation/transparency of infrastructure from transporter operations, then to establish a new regulatory structure of the infrastructure in the mode of utility regulation with the aim of allowing certain federal tax incentives to naturalize demand for rail services along with highway and waterway services, aka an Americanized version of open access, which would allow the free flow of modal choices among railroads, highways, waterways, etc.

Yeah, I can see how someone with a one track mind could consistently misinterpret that view. Way to comlicated for some, I guess.

[Limitedclear]

FM your understanding of the railroad industry is so limited as to continually result in your OA mentality.

Obviously, you don't have a counter argument to removing the caboose. Remember that before the Westinghouse Air Brake many brakemen were needed to apply and remove handbrakes by hand. When there was a caboose there needed to be a flagman, rear brakeman and conductor in addition to the Engineer, Fireman and head brakeman on the head end.

Then there were inventions, two way radio eliminated the need for a flagman as trains could now be controlled by a dispatcher with or without fixed lineside signals. Operation by timetable became obsolete. The EOTD eliminated the need for the conductor on the caboose with his emergency brake valve and the lineside HBD/DED and better roller bearings eliminated the need for the brakeman watching ahead from the caboose.

As to the retention of the surplus locomotive firemen, flagmen and brakemen. Some eventually came back to work on the railroad having been lais off for over a decade. I worked with several. Others sought different career paths. At the time they were furloughed the railroad didn't need them and had no idea when it might need them again. There wasn't any sense in keeping them for a need that might never arise. Also, there was another important point. In 1985 new labor agreements were made that split the more expensive pre-1985 crews from the "New Hires" who were able to claim substantially fewer arbitraries and other pay adjustments than the pre-1985 employees. This made pre-1985 employees much more expensive than post-85s performing the same work. Obviously, the railroads were in no hurry to rehire or add more expensive employees and chose instead to train new employees for those jobs knowing that the pre-85 employees were more expensive and most were older and had fewer years to work . Certainly a rational choice, if not one calculated to be popular.

FInally, with respect to your OA continued reregulation foolishness...

It has obviously never occurred to you in your tunnel vision OA world that railroads competed for decades with many parallel lines. In most such places the strongest railroads won. They won through efficient use of resources or by having the best engineered route or both. Your concept of forcing open access to competitors is first a taking of property subject to the 5th and 14 Amendment Due Process Clauses and second an economically foolish idea. Each train that operates over the track of the owning railroad is generating revenue and degrading the track structure. Forcing the owner to allow competitors to use its tracks is a taking of property requiring just compensation. Second, having multiple competitors using one track will be similar to having parallel lines. While the shared infrastructure may be slightly cheaper to maintain, the heavier usage will more than make up for those savings through required repairs. What will happen is the railroads operating over the line will try to retain the traffic by price cutting and the weakest will fail. On weaker routes, all will fail and abandonment will result or the original owning railroad will get the line back without competition...some solution...as they say in the beer commercial...BRILLIANT!!

LC

[edblysard]

So, if you never have worked for a railroad, in the T&E departments, where do you get the concept that it takes "twice as long to walk a consist prior to departure" without a rear end crew?
Quote your source, please, because you present this as a fact, with no qualifying statement.
Show us where and how you came to this conclusion.
Are you guessing?
Did someone tell you this, and who would that person be?
What are their credentials?
Explain to us why someone from the crew would have to walk the consist in a terminal or yard.
And while you are at it, please quote your source for the 20 mile drag on a derailment, photos, reference source, factual evidence...you know, stuff like that.
Or was that exaggeration too, in an attempt to make your statement seem more valid?
Your assumption or expectation that we have to accept anything you chose to write simply because you wrote it is wrong, you lack any of the credentials, or are too afraid or embarrassed by any you could produce, to validate any of your statements, be it about railroads or economics.
You chose instead to copy other peoples work, or edit others work to make it appear they are in agreement with you.
You have even stooped so low as to falsify and impersonate another forum member in your desperate and feeble attempt to validate your concepts.

Point is, you are making statements and presenting them as facts, with no first hand knowledge of the actual working of railroads or trains.
You make conclusions, and are then presenting them as fact, based on nothing but assumptions and light reading.

So far, you have presented nothing but theory, with out any operating experience, and have been demanding we then give your theory credence, and consider it valid.
Funny, but had you had ever done any of the work mentioned, or even read the GCOR rules on it, you would have at the least a very basic concept of what an initial terminal air test involves, and why and how it is done.
Do you know why and how a EOT device works?
Do you know what happens when a train derails, even at slow yard speeds?
Do you understand how and why the air brakes and train line work?
Had you done even that small amount of valid research, you would see how silly and exaggerated the statement quoted is.
I would love to meet the engineer that had a derailment, then drug it 20 miles without noticing it...just so I could shake the hand of the numbest person on the planet.

As was pointed out, pre 85 employees are "protected" in that they still work under some provisions of the old contract, and get perks and pay way beyond anyone hired after 1985, up to and including a yearly paid form of profit sharing, or trip pay incentive...which can equal the entire yearly salary of a new hire by itself.
Keeping these men on the payroll, when their service is no longer needed, is a huge drain.
Why do you think the carriers and the unions both went full bore on the 30/60 retirement deal?
It benefits both parties.
Old heads get to walk away with full pension at 60, with 30 or more year’s service, and the carriers get a big reduction in their payroll cost because the men in position to utilize this are, for the most part, pre 1985, or “protected men”.
Where do you think the manpower shortage you hear about came from?

If you have no idea, or have never read or understood that contract, then how can you make any statement in regards to it, in any but the most generalized terms?
Do you know what "air pay" is, and why or how it is paid?
How about "away from home terminal" pay, or "unprotected man" pay?
These guys get extra money just for working with a post '85 employee.
Do you understand deadhead pay, why and how it is paid?

You have no knowledge of any of these, yet seem to think that you are qualified to comment on them, in as much as you dismiss the impact these perks and employees make on the bottom line, and make such broad and uninformed statement as you do.

So, yes, Dave, "not" having done the work means you are indeed not qualified to make statements of fact about it.

This in turn, puts almost all of your postings, threads, and comments into the “all you have to do” catagory...pure speculation and guess work, nothing more.

You seem to think the more strident your and loud you make your assumptions, the more we should value them.
You also seem to think that the more you insult people, the more we will respect you, or the more we will pay attention to you…which is fairly stupid on your part, for all it really does is highlight how uninformed and ignorant of trains, railroading and people you are.

Sorta like a little high school kid who cusses, thinking it make him appear older, or worldlier, when in fact, it only makes him look more like a kid, your tirades and name calling earn you little or no respect, because it only shows you are unwilling to learn or listen.
You argue with people, who not only work in the field you are commenting on, but in some instances, own or manage railroads, dispatch railroads, run the locomotives, line the switches…one of them runs a railroad for the DOD, yet you seem to think they are all the fool, and you have to only “truth” there is…
This makes you nothing but a fool and a troll, arguing for arguments sake alone.
Which, in turn, makes you either a comic relief, or a waste of time.
Ed