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.
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.
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
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.
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
QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear The caboose was in its day the largest source of T&E employee injury claims. LC
23 17 46 11
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
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.
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
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.
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds The unions follow a strategy that promotes substitution of capital for labor.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
QUOTE: Originall posted by grehounds The unions follow a strategy that promotes substitution of capital for labor.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Increasing average speeds = increased business
An "expensive model collector"
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.