Canadian Railroads > Focus on Burkhardt ...

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/07/11/lac_megantic_railways_history_of_costcutting.html

Not very flattering view of Burkhardt and his approach ...

Will MacKenzie
Dundas, ON

Burkhardt started off well in this issue for the simple reason that he showed some candour.

As the story has unfolded, and the issue is moving into issues about practices for parking and securing a train (as opposed to sabotage or mechanical failure) legal issues seem to be mounting and he appears to have reverted to circling the wagons. He is also being justifiably criticized for a one-language response to the community....anyone who does business in Quebec should know better on this one.

The argument that I'm not buying is the concern about a one man crew. If there were a two-man crew, there would be a hogger and a conductor. Generally hoggers sit in the cab and conductors are the ones who get down on the ground and apply hand brakes. The conductor is the boss so having a second person would not add either oversight or manpower to the task of tying down the train. As it happens, this event happened after the crew had gone to a motel.....how having a second person in the motel would add safety, I don't know. I'm not advocating one man crews, but maybe some of the traditional demarcations of duties in the cab and on the ground need to be revisited.

- Paul

I have known Ed Burkhardt for 30 plus years and count him as a very good friend. He is a total gentleman, a man whose word is his bond and a consumate railroader. Thanks to Ed's genius and hard work many derelict properties ( including the MMA) have been saved from being torn up and forgotten.

This horrible tragedy is obviously due to human error and we all need to be keeping those who have suffered the tragic losses in our thoughts and prayers, especially Ed Burkhardt and his team who feel the losses as much or more than anyone.

Ross Rowland

thehighwayman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/07/11/lac_
> megantic_railways_history_of_costcutting.html
>
> Not very flattering view of Burkhardt and his
> approach ...

Also not accurate. "Burkhardt sold Wisconsin Central to CN for $1.2 billion in 2001" is very misleading or outright wrong. If I recall correctly, Burkhardt was against any sale and wanted to keep railroading. He had built WC up from nothing into a regional powerhouse. The Wisconsin Central Board forced him out so they could sell out to CN.

I only knew Ed B. while he was AVPT at CNW and I was in Service Planning at UP back in the 1970s. In my opinion, he is the primary reason the CNW was left standing and the other Iowa Lines withered away. I felt very perplexed when he was passed over to become CNW CEO. I think he deserved it.

Best regards,

Rob L.

rob_l Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Also not accurate. "Burkhardt sold Wisconsin
> Central to CN for $1.2 billion in 2001" is very
> misleading or outright wrong. If I recall
> correctly, Burkhardt was against any sale and
> wanted to keep railroading. He had built WC up
> from nothing into a regional powerhouse. The
> Wisconsin Central Board forced him out so they
> could sell out to CN.


You recall correctly.

If I may add my own foggy recollection, Burkhardt was out of the country when the board staged the coup. He might have been looking to add to the collection of railroads, having already been running the English Welsh & Scottish, the WC and maybe there was one other non-north American property.

BobE

Regarding the discussion of one-man versus two-man crews... Regardless of work rules/labor agreements of who gets on the ground and manipulates the handbrakes... On at least one class one in North America safety rules require both conductor and engineer to have a job safety briefing, and are both held responsible for insuring equipment is properly secured before leaving it unattended. And as someone else posted on a related thread, verifying sufficient hand brakes are applied by releasing air brakes is a heck of a lot easier with someone in the cab and another on the ground.

But as originally stated but someone else, I am not advocating neither for nor against one-man versus two-man crews... simply citing some differences in the application of safely securing unattending equipment WITHOUT relying on air brakes alone to provide the securement.

crs1026 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> The argument that I'm not buying is the concern
> about a one man crew. If there were a two-man
> crew, there would be a hogger and a conductor.
> Generally hoggers sit in the cab and conductors
> are the ones who get down on the ground and apply
> hand brakes. The conductor is the boss so having a
> second person would not add either oversight or
> manpower to the task of tying down the train. As
> it happens, this event happened after the crew had
> gone to a motel.....how having a second person in
> the motel would add safety, I don't know. I'm not
> advocating one man crews, but maybe some of the
> traditional demarcations of duties in the cab and
> on the ground need to be revisited.
>
> - Paul


Among the points that you may be missing are that with two people on the crew, you have two people responsible for safely tying down the train instead of one. That means 2 heads in the game instead of one. If one crewman feels like cutting corners, it is easy to do when by himself. If someone else is there - and also responsible - then the corners are a lot less likely to be cut.

There should be no questions that hauling 10,000 tons of crude oil should have more than 1 person responsible. There are too many things that can go wrong where having a second person there to resolve issues can be invaluable.

Now he states he will welcome additional regulations to prevent this from happening again. Well, the technology and regulations already exist they just need to religiously be applied in every situation.

His statement MMA will never again leave a train unattended and all of the Class 1 railroads will adopt the same policy in the near future is just foolish. He may consider himself a leader in the industry when he sees Class 1s following his lead in cost cutting but they will cut him loose if his ideas will add to their expenses.

Perhaps Mr Burkhart needs to step away for a couple of days to catch his breath and let someone else do his speaking for him.

I admire his candor and accessibility and he will be the one to establish new MMA policies in the end but I think he is too busy with too many people from a lot of different entities to be speaking off the cuff. A spokesman could tell the press, "we will get back to you on that" and a more measured response could be given.

Posted from Windows Phone OS 7



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/13 10:46 by fbe.

I haven't been able to get my head wrap ed all this just yet. Was the engine attached to the train when it rolled away, and what did the download of the engine tapes read? I have read so much I can't get a clear understanding of of just what happened other than the fact the train was improperly secured. If the crew, and or person, did a securement test and the train held after releasing the automatic and independent brakes ; then the railroad should be in the clear. If the crew/person did not do a securement test; then the engineer /crew person is in big trouble. UP routinely tests for securement tests in random downloads and I have told guys over the years it just as easy to set a few to many hand brakes ; than not enough. The time it takes to do a securement check is time well spent.

I also know Ed Burkhardt, and I worked as a consultant to both WC and to EW&S (where Mr. Burkhardt was also forced out after growing the business pretty well).

For the record, I hear that CN's takeover of WC is widely regretted by shippers, who feel they got much better service from WC than they do from CN.

The same is true on EW&S. Under present ownership, growth has stalled (of course, some of that may be due to the British economy).

Now on to MM&A. That railroad has been hanging on by its fingernails since Day 1. The paper business has largely disappeared. It was really touch and go for a while, and it looked like the whole railroad might simply shut down. In fact, most of the trackage in Maine was sold to the state. Thanks to the oil traffic to St. John, there is once again something to haul, but this railroad is very fragile. I hope the Lac Megantic mess doesn't kill it altogether. That would be a loss for everyone.

As to the safety record, let me just note that short lines and regionals generally have poorer safety records than Class Is, not because they're cheap, or negligent, but rather because their track is maintained to a lower standard and they do more local switching relative to tonnage carried. Yards and switching are where most accidents occur.

I fear that this may turn out to be sabotage, as I said before. Leaving trains at this siding was a routine practice for MM&A.

NOOOOOW YA ALL SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PRIVATE NON-UNIONIZED COMPANY WITH THAT OF A CLASS 1 OR EVEN A CLASS RAILROAD PUBLICLY TRADED THAT IS UNIONIZED ... REMEMBER THAT WHEN ONE GOES TO HIRE ON ... DISGUSTING

midwest Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Regarding the discussion of one-man versus two-man
> crews... Regardless of work rules/labor
> agreements of who gets on the ground and
> manipulates the handbrakes... On at least one
> class one in North America safety rules require
> both conductor and engineer to have a job safety
> briefing, and are both held responsible for
> insuring equipment is properly secured before
> leaving it unattended. And as someone else posted
> on a related thread, verifying sufficient hand
> brakes are applied by releasing air brakes is a
> heck of a lot easier with someone in the cab and
> another on the ground.

Very good point and shows some familiarity with what really is (or should be) going on between operating crew members.
>
> But as originally stated but someone else, I am
> not advocating neither for nor against one-man
> versus two-man crews...

Contrary to some of the recent posts in these Lac Megantic threads, I am totally opposed to one-man crew operations strictly on the safety issue. It is a widely accepted fact that T&E employees perpetually function in a sleep-deprived state, thanks to railroads' unexcusable inability to schedule operations; that second set of eyes and brain may not be fail-safe, but functioning as a team with shared responsibility reduces the opportunity for errors and omissions; been there and grateful for it. Don't kid yourself, the one-man crew concept is all about corporate greed, management trying to squeeze the last ounce of productivity out of the employee, and encouraging shortcuts to make it "work". You may hear lip service paid to "safety", but shareholder returns and executive compensation take precedence. If a railroad cannot operate safely and profitably in the private sector with competent, trained, adequately compensated employees and a well-maintained physical plant, then shut it down. If the loss of the trackage is contrary to shipper or public interest, then it's time for those entities to step up to the plate with their resources. I'm certain the citizens of Lac Megantic would agree that no rail service is better that what they got from MMA.

> Posted by Rob_l:
>Also not accurate. "Burkhardt sold Wisconsin Central to CN for $1.2 billion in 2001" is very misleading or outright wrong. If I recall correctly, Burkhardt was against any sale and wanted to keep railroading. He had built WC up from nothing into a regional powerhouse. The Wisconsin Central Board forced him out so they could sell out to CN.

>Posted by BobE:
>You recall correctly.
>
>If I may add my own foggy recollection, Burkhardt was out of the country when the board staged the coup. He might have been looking to add to the collection of railroads, having already been running the English Welsh & Scottish, the WC and maybe there was one other non-north American property.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I worked for WCL from 1997-2002 and watched the events unfold from the perspective of a train service employee. My recollections and opinions are based on management briefings (official and unofficial) and personal observation, albeit clouded a bit by age, but here goes.

What Mr. Burkhardt accomplished with the WCL property was nothing short of amazing, and the effort to make the company an attractive acquisition target for CN was part of the plan, if not from the beginning, at least for some years before the sale actually occurred. His active involvement in the WCL waned, however, following the initiation of heightened regulatory oversight resulting from the Weyauwega and Lomira derailments (WI banned one-man crews and remotes) and the unionization of the operating crafts. It seemed as if he felt the latter was a personal betrayal, while it was simply a response, among other issues, to the one-man crews and remote control operations being implemented. This wasn't the first union vote, by the way; the union had been rejected previously (4 times?) but apparently management didn't recognize a good thing when they had it and kept attempting to introduce more onerous cost-cutting schemes.

Mr. Burkhardt's interests then seemed to shift to the overseas operations/acquisitions in New Zealand, Great Britain, and Poland, that I recall; there may have been additional locations. Supposedly, none of these were profitable and were being funded by WC revenue. I think the board simply felt this was not in the best interests of the corporation and would make WCL, now CTC from Chicago to Superior and ready to sell, a less-attractive property for CN. Since Mr. Burkhardt was likely viewed as an impediment to that sale, he was relieved of his responsibilities.

Do I think CN (and EHH) was better for WCL employees and customers than the original management team? The fact that I departed within 3 months after the sale should answer that question.

Corrections welcomed.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/13 11:52 by terrybaker.

Out_Of_Service Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NOOOOOW YA ALL SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A
> PRIVATE NON-UNIONIZED COMPANY WITH THAT OF A CLASS
> 1 OR EVEN A CLASS RAILROAD PUBLICLY TRADED THAT IS
> UNIONIZED ... REMEMBER THAT WHEN ONE GOES TO HIRE
> ON ... DISGUSTING

Not pro or con on unions, however off the top of my head I can name runaways in the not too distant past on the following class 1: CSX with unit 8888 that "Unstoppable" was based on, ATSF/BNSF on Cajon and SP on Cajon.

Every one of these had extenuating circumstances that contributed to the runaway. We will not know for sure until the investigation is complete, however from everything I have read so far, the one on the MM&A will more than likely be found to have the loco fire as the catalyst--simply put, no fire, no runaway.

Jay

I don't know much about Burkhardt but after this mess, I know he needs to either get some training in PR and media handling, or let a professional either handle it for him or give him "prepared statements". I've never seen a top-level executive make so many incriminating and inflammatory public statements in such a short period of time than I saw in the days following this tragedy. His rookie missteps with the media and residents of Lac Megantic only made a bad situation worse in my opinion. What a shame. This is not only a disaster for the MM&A, but for the entire industry.

Out_Of_Service Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NOOOOOW YA ALL SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A
> PRIVATE NON-UNIONIZED COMPANY WITH THAT OF A CLASS
> 1 OR EVEN A CLASS RAILROAD PUBLICLY TRADED THAT IS
> UNIONIZED ... REMEMBER THAT WHEN ONE GOES TO HIRE
> ON ... DISGUSTING

At least some MMA employees are:

http://www.usw.ca/media/news/releases?id=0882



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/13 11:52 by thb403.

Sure, blame the employee. If I were him, all I have to say is "I placed sufficient handbrakes--did you properly secure the environment around the train? Can you be 100% sure it wasn't sabotage?" and if the locomotive event recorders show that "tie and tug" did happen, he's in the clear--although haunted for the rest of his life. There's a lot of un-watched railroad out here, and who is to say that some kids or adults, or --and I"m shocked nobody mentioned this one yet, TERRORISTS--didn't go play around and knock the brakes off of the train. Runaways happen all the time due to tresspassers knocking the brakes off...most are stopped due to derails on sidings...That'd be the first thing I would bring up in defense of the engineer.

AND--for Mr, Burhkart, who wants no train left unattended. CSX had a similar rule placed shortly after a runaway rail train. After the railroad came to a grinding halt, paying crews obscene amounts of overtime, and paying penalty payments for having non-contract managers babysitting trains after the contract crews ran out of time. CSX has backed off of this policy.

In the end, the constant media blitz over this admittedly horrible tragedy will destroy the engineer, Burkhart and MMA.

!Statements above are made by an engineer, feeling for a devistated community and engineer...That's my bias, and I'm admitting that to you now...Use at your own risk, individual results may vary, void where prohibited, etc.

DrLoco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sure, blame the employee. If I were him, all I
> have to say is "I placed sufficient
> handbrakes--did you properly secure the
> environment around the train? Can you be 100%
> sure it wasn't sabotage?" and if the locomotive
> event recorders show that "tie and tug" did
> happen, he's in the clear--although haunted for
> the rest of his life. There's a lot of un-watched
> railroad out here, and who is to say that some
> kids or adults, or --and I"m shocked nobody
> mentioned this one yet, TERRORISTS--didn't go play
> around and knock the brakes off of the train.
> Runaways happen all the time due to tresspassers
> knocking the brakes off...most are stopped due to
> derails on sidings...That'd be the first thing I
> would bring up in defense of the engineer.
>
> AND--for Mr, Burhkart, who wants no train left
> unattended. CSX had a similar rule placed shortly
> after a runaway rail train. After the railroad
> came to a grinding halt, paying crews obscene
> amounts of overtime, and paying penalty payments
> for having non-contract managers babysitting
> trains after the contract crews ran out of time.
> CSX has backed off of this policy.
>
> In the end, the constant media blitz over this
> admittedly horrible tragedy will destroy the
> engineer, Burkhart and MMA.
>
> !Statements above are made by an engineer, feeling
> for a devistated community and engineer...That's
> my bias, and I'm admitting that to you now...Use
> at your own risk, individual results may vary,
> void where prohibited, etc.


Well stated. I've witnessed everything you have said here and will go one better. I've been on trains that were stopped and had kids APPLY the handbrakes, turn angle cocks, and bleed individual cars off. One night in Deshler we had a guy who tried to steal our EOT. He knew how to do it to. One man crews? That's all about the $$$$.

thb403 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Out_Of_Service Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > NOOOOOW YA ALL SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A
> > PRIVATE NON-UNIONIZED COMPANY WITH THAT OF A
> CLASS
> > 1 OR EVEN A CLASS RAILROAD PUBLICLY TRADED THAT
> IS
> > UNIONIZED ... REMEMBER THAT WHEN ONE GOES TO
> HIRE
> > ON ... DISGUSTING
>
> At least some MMA employees are:
>
> http://www.usw.ca/media/news/releases?id=0882
=================================================
It appears these employees pay dues to a union; hopefully they receive enough benefits to make membership worthwhile enough to offset the reported pay and crew reductions imposed by managment. Not the union I would choose to represent me vs. railroad management.

"Let me get this straight, I'm now going to do the work of 2 people and you're going to pay me 25% less... where do I sign up?"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/13 12:51 by terrybaker.

Thanks for your input. A follow-up question below.

terrybaker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Since Mr.
> Burkhardt was likely viewed as an impediment to
> that sale, he was relieved of his
> responsibilities.

Please explain how the incumbent CEO could somehow be an impediment to the sale of the property. I can believe that the overseas ventures/acquisitions might be an impediment to the sale (if that made it difficult to split apart the USA assets and sell only those), but I have a real hard time understanding why the buyer would care who the outgoing CEO might be.

I think it much more likely that either (1) the WC Board was unhappy with Burkhardt's overseas ventures, or (2) Burkhardt was opposed to a sale of WC to CN, or both.

Thanks in advance,

Rob L.

rob_l Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for your input. A follow-up question
> below.
>
> terrybaker Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Since Mr.
> > Burkhardt was likely viewed as an impediment to
> > that sale, he was relieved of his
> > responsibilities.
>
> Please explain how the incumbent CEO could somehow
> be an impediment to the sale of the property. I
> can believe that the overseas
> ventures/acquisitions might be an impediment to
> the sale (if that made it difficult to split apart
> the USA assets and sell only those), but I have a
> real hard time understanding why the buyer would
> care who the outgoing CEO might be.
>
> I think it much more likely that either (1) the WC
> Board was unhappy with Burkhardt's overseas
> ventures, or (2) Burkhardt was opposed to a sale
> of WC to CN, or both.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Rob L.
=======================================================
Rob...
I think your last paragraph answered your initial question. Considering the two points you made, the Board probably decided EB's usefulness to the organization had run its course and it was time to jettison him; the sale would just be much smoother if he was not a factor to deal with. Only speculating here, but maybe CN also felt more comfortable dealing with the Board minus EB and let them know that. Whether his opposition to selling the WC could have been related more to concern over loss of the income stream funding the overseas operations, rather than any affinity for WC, is another intriguing question.

In an earlier posting on this thread, Shoretower references having worked as a consultant to EB's WC and EW&S operations, and I hope he corrects or clarifies any erroneous statements I might have made. However, his point that EB was forced out of EW&S, in addition to WC, caught my attention; was it coincidental, just business as usual or something else?