Railroaders' Nostalgia > The reason for a good 24 hour plus lineup. (TAW is right!)

A couple of years after the UP had taken over the SP, and had changed the work order reporting system to the UP style, I was called to work the FIRST MRVRO from Roseville to Portola.  At this time, the RO did all of the local work between Oroville and Portola, including Oroville, all of the little M of W spurs like Tobin and Twain, etc, Quincy Junction, and Portola.  There was an ongoing power shortage, and as the RO was the lowest priority, they hadn't run one for three days.  We also need to remember that nothing has been picked up for three days either!

The UP Work Order system assigns cars to trains by date order, regardless of where they are in a yard, OR what order in a track they are in!  If a car is not assigned to your train, it does not show on your list, even if it is in the track you are going to pick up, ahead of your cars!  So,  when six large engines arrived on an inbound train, they cut them up into three pair, and called three MRVROs a half hour apart.  The standard outbound blocking for these trains was Orovilles on the head end, everything East of Oroville but short of Quncy next, Quncy empties, Portolas, and Ropers on the rear.

Next problem is that all Eastbounds are limited to 5700 feet due to the "short" sidings on the former WP, and the non-clearing Westbound stack trains.  It is also over 20 miles between Ostrom, the last Siding on the former SP, and Craig, the only  WP Siding West of Oroville

The Managers of Terminal Operations, and the Director of Term Ops have NO operating experience, and the only thing they care about is getting their trains out of the terminal within the allotted time.  As a result of what happened, it became obvious that the terminal and the dispatchers office didn't do any planning either!

So, we leave Roseville with a 5 block train, knowing we won't have time to pick up and set out in at least five places, and make Portola in 12 hours.  We have the train built from two days ago, yesterday's train is on duty half an hour behind us, (remember that he has to pick up and set out in the same places,)  and today's train is going on duty in RSVL to try and do the same thing over again an hour later...

We get to Oroville where the dispatcher has us lined in the siding so we can go up to the crossover and make our setout and pickup.  I set out my 25 cars in track 3, go back against my train to get the shorts and the Quincys to keep them on the head end, then I go back against track 1 where my pickup shows.  The track is almost full, about 80 cars or so,  the only problem is that my car numbers aren't on he East end.  I start walking, thinking the list is reversed, but after I walk about fifty, I find the first car I am supposed to pick up.  What has happened is that the work order system assigned the cars pulled two days ago to my train that didn't run.  The next day the Oroville Switcher put his pulls from that day on top of the Outbounds from the day before, and the work order system assigned them to the RO that is now stopped in the siding behind my Fred, listening to me doing my work. Since the Outbounds didn't get picked up yesterday either, the switcher put today's pulls on top of the Outbounds already there, and the system assigned them to the third RO who is now waiting at Ostrom for things to clear up a little.  I have to pull up and set my cars to pick up over, then set the rest back, then pick them up and double out to the siding, because the second train is right behind me, and just in the clear of the signal, so I can't shove back.

After a Westbound, I get to leave, the seond RO gets to pull up and start doing the same thing I had just done, and the dispr turns the 3rd train loose at Ostrom.  Switch Tobin and Twain, then head for Quincy.

We get to Quincy to find both tracks full of loaded cars, and only four are mine, and I have 6 empties to set out.  I pick up the four loads and set out four empties, then set back to wait for the dog catch crew.  The new crew will set out the two empty centerbeams that didn't fit at Portola, along with the Portolas.

In the van we can hear another van taking a patch crew to the 2nd train, who also didn't have a correct list of Quincy due to the work order system assigning the cars to the train behind them.  Before we got to Portola, the Armadillo dispatcher called our driver to give him the call for the patch of the 3rd RO.

Had they done some PLANNING, they would have run one train with all the Orovilles.  He would have set out his whole train at Oroville in one move, then picked up all of the outbounds, and gone straight to Quincy,  cleared off both tracks, which would have made him a full train.

The second train should have had all the Ropers, which would have made him a full train, and the third train would have had the handfull of M of W cars to switch at all of the little spurs enroute, plus all of the Quincy empties.

Instead it was three trains, three patch crews, or dog catchers depending on your heritage, three van charges, and six locomotives tied up for a looong time.
G

 

Typical, there in no such word as logical in railroad language..
JB

What a CF. Don't know how you could stand it. This is precisely why the RR I work for prefers to hire managers from T&E. It's pretty hard for "college kids" to be thrust into this work straight out of school and have a clue how railroads work. Most of them never really get it and operational efficiency suffers in the process.

trainjunkie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What a CF. Don't know how you could stand it. This
> is precisely why the RR I work for prefers to hire
> managers from T&E. It's pretty hard for "college
> kids" to be thrust into this work straight out of
> school and have a clue how railroads work. Most of
> them never really get it and operational
> efficiency suffers in the process.

But rhe computer knows all!

J.

UP in the 80's thought they knew better then everybody else. The meltdowns proved them wrong.

    Am I correct however that not much has changed ?
 

J.Ferris Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> But rhe computer knows all!
>
> J.

The problem with computers is that they only do what they are told to do.  That goes for the operators and the programmers.   Usually the programmers are given a list of requirements and they write the code to satisfy those requirements.  They rarely talk to the people that have to deal with the systems to see what is really needed.

John
 

The railroads don't want to spend the money to promote from within. They'd rather pay a college kid chump change for they're inexperience!

Posted from Android

espeefan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The railroads don't want to spend the money to
> promote from within. They'd rather pay a college
> kid chump change for they're inexperience!
>
> Posted from Android

It's not just the railroads who do that.  That's one of the things they teach at management schools.  Anybody can be a "universal" manager.

Oh, there is so much in this that is so wrong. It goes beyond failure to plan. It shows the improper use of software and the failure to even understand the business.

espeefan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The railroads don't want to spend the money to
> promote from within. They'd rather pay a college
> kid chump change for they're inexperience!
>

There's that and also railroads often have a disdain for experience. They don't want the "new blood" to be contaminated by "old ideas." I heard that repeatedly throughout the 80s and it seems from the sidelines that it hasn't changed.

BN moved from OJT/apprenticeship of train dispatchers to modernize training and keep the candidates away from "old school" thinking. They set out to prove that they could hire guys off the street to be train dispatchers. The result was: http://www.staplesworld.com/news/2009-06-11/crow_wing_currents/064.html. They kept on with the same strategy and came up with this: http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/RAR9301.pdf. We (the dispatchers in the Seattle office) caught management telling the new dispatchers to pay no attention to the old washed up guys in the office, particularly the assistant chiefs.

I even had a new guy tell me exactly that. I was Spokane Division (1st trick assistant) Chief. I lined up a window for a steel gang. There was just barely time for a string between No 4 (red hot smokin' awesome Z train) and No 21(another one of those)'s time. 21 was early. I told the gang that they had to be ready to go immediately when No 4 was by. I worked with the guy for a decade. I knew what he could do and what he would do. I told spatch the plan in plain language. The foreman will call when 4 is shining. Give him after until 1400. That's barely time to lay one string. 21 goes when he's clear and can make Spokane right on time. Don't dive him for 14 and 14 can still make Whitefish on time too.

No 4 was by the gang about 15 minutes or so when the foreman called me. He was pissed. I'd never broken a promise to him and now his guys are ready and the dispatcher told him he's not going to work today. Now I was pissed. I told him to hang on the phone and went into the dispatcher's room for an animated conversation. He told me that he wasn't about to follow my stupid instructions. They told him in school that he should never listen to the assistant chiefs, but rather do things exactly as taught in school. I asked if that is indeed what he was told in dispatcher school and the answer was a definitive yes. We old guys were hung up on old ways and needed to be ignored until we were all retired. I stomped out of the trick room back to my desk, told the foreman to hang more while I do a little work on the problem. There was nothing out of Wenatchee and nothing due until late evening. 21 could make up 10 minutes between Spokane and Wenatchee. I called the Yardley yardmaster and asked if he would be in a position to get the Spokanes off of 21 at 1600 and out of there in 15 minutes. He said that he could make that happen (notice, I didn't call the trainmaster). I went back to my desk and told the foreman to call the trick man. I arranged for him to have the same amount of time, so he still had to get right on it.

I went into the trick room and told spatch that the foreman was calling, give him a permit until 1430. He told me that I didn't have the authority to tell him to delay a hot train; he wasn't about to do it. I told him to get out of the chair and go home. He told me I couldn't do that. I answered the dial phone and grabbed the permit book and one last time told him to give the steel gang 1430 or get out of here. He told me that he was going to turn me in, but stuck out the permit. I went back to the desk and called the ATDA (union) General Chairman. Spatch turned me in to the Super (management) Chief. Another animated discussion ensued. I headed for the door - see ya. Oops, as ususal, not the desired result. Ok, fine. Stay here and finish the shift. Not another word was heard and ATDA resolved the situation with senior management.

Railroads do the same with management training. BN tried repeatedly through the 80s to be a truck company or a manufacturing company. They are easier to manage than a railroad, so they tried to be one. It didn't work. I have experienced orders from managers to do things that are plainly against the rules. Sometimes it was for failure to know the rules. Sometimes it was for failure to understand rules that they had cursory knowledge of. Sometimes, it was a matter of expediency. 

I see the same in railroad engineering. I've worked with freshly hired civil engineers who could find the technical requirements for track, but couldn't tell you what track is for, beyond being a guideway. They know all about highways and highway modeling and traffic signals and are expected to invent railroad knowledge from that. While they thrash about to figure out an infrastructure solution that works, at least they're not contaminated by old school thinking.

Computers are not really a problem. The problem is how the system is developed and how they are used. The two pictures here apply to Information Systems as well as simulation, since railroad management IS is actually nothing but a real time model: http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,3772799,3773736#3773736.

The computer problem is not unique to railroads. Management wants automation to replace people. They don't really know what the people do or how they do it and don't want to know (business schools teach that management is management and it is best to not know what the company does). They then hire software people to design a system to automate and get rid of those pesky people. They, the folks who know nothing about what the people to be replaced do, write a specification for the software, specifying the function that will replace the function of the people whom they don't have a clue what they do. They also specifically prohibit the systems designers from learning anything about what the people the system replaces do and how they do it. They are typically prohibited from talking to any of the employees who do the work.

Just as in the discussion of the NS auto router system that melted down the railroad, management pays unit train of money for systems that meet specifications that can't work, then insist that they be used. The plan the computer generates must be the best possible solution, even though the thinking was done by someone who doesn't have a clue (but has a degree in computer science). They don't want the people developing the systems to have a clue. Since the system is now doing the thinking, all management needs to do is be sure that the remaining employees do as instructed by the computer, as demonstrated in this shining example.

This is all so frustrating. Railroads need to keep merging and getting bigger in order to hide the inefficiencies. Those of us who helped keep relatively small railroads alive during ICC regulation marvel at how much waste goes unnoticed on today's mega railroads. The attitude toward efficient operation is similar to the approach to safe operation here: http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?18,3897404,3897444#msg-3897444. Today's standard business practices (crew management, power management, yard management, traffic management, etc.) would have gotten us canned 40 years ago. The waste that goes on now would not have been acceptable, particularly on a (relatively) small railroad.

TAW

 

TAW hits the nail on the head again, as usual.  

And the problem is getting much worse, I fear, as the generation that actually KNEW things attrits out and is replaced by the wave of those who only have "experience" with the MBA wonderous management and only following what the computer tells them.  Fixing things gets harder and harder.

And get off my lawn!

TAW's comments can be applied to many areas!  I am not a railroader but spent many years teaching forestry and wood technology at land-grant universities.  We would have new PhDs come in and pontificate about changing the way we did things because...  Example that struck home for me was that we had a hands-on logging and sawmilling class at summer field studies.  Students learned the basics of operating chainsaws (safely), felling and bucking, etc.  We had new faculty (research and grant-oriented) suggesting we didn't need to teach that because "no one does that any more".  The "old fogies" (including me!) advocated that all the students needed to load pulpwood by hand since that would give them an appreciation for what power equipment could do.  I also advocated for having them try to fell a tree using an axe and a two-man crosscut saw.  We also began teaching students how to conduct prescribed fires  -- in pseudo-controlled conditions.  That was exciting at times as well!  Gives them an appreciation for what needs to be done to get other things done. I would agree that doing things by hand is slow and painful but would also contend that a hands-on approach to learning gives a much better appreciation of exactly what needs to be done to accomplish a task.  There are many very valid reasons for apprentice systems and hands-on experience!

Bruce
Glad to be retired forestry prof

Not to defend what happened, but the discussion takes no account of what would be needed to re-build the three Roper trains to meet the needs of the local work.

Sure, if 'they' had known in advance that the trains would be delayed, it would have made more sense to build the three trains in the manner described. But who - even TAW - can predict that far in advance.

On Day 1, the yard built the RO as directed. Likewise on Day 2. Maybe -- maybe - 'they' would have an inkling that problems were going to result with a RO train already 48 hours late acct no power.

In retrospect [100% accuracy, right?], some re-arrangement of power should have occurred, to protect the RO trains, so they could run on time. If a North Platte train is held for power, and gets bunched up at NP, it's a problem, but nowhere as severe as bunching that occurs at small yards like Oroville. That's why, back in the day, SP San Joaquin Supt. Lloyd Nations insisted that the West Colton-Bakersfield train - that handles the Mojaves - ALWAYS ran in preference to yet another Eugene empty train. He took care of HIS division first, when resources got tight.

Same thing should happened in this case. Run the 'local' on time, same time, every day.

JGFuller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not to defend what happened, but the discussion
> takes no account of what would be needed to
> re-build the three Roper trains to meet the needs
> of the local work.

Actually that, as well as the consequences of rebuilding (trains that shouldn't have been built) vs the fiasco that occurred, should have been taken into account lieu of this discussion.


>
> Sure, if 'they' had known in advance that the
> trains would be delayed, it would have made more
> sense to build the three trains in the manner
> described. But who - even TAW - can predict that
> far in advance.

Well........

I think that if the industry would go back to geographic authority instead of asset authority, in many cases such debacles could be prevented. Instead of having a driver operating a vehicle, the industry has a gas pedal operator, a steering wheel operator, a clutch operator, a shift operator, and a brake operator. Each is autonomous. The vehicle lurches on down the road - but it ain' pretty.

I have worked under several arrangements

• one person with responsibility for power, crews, traffic flow, keeping yards current, etc.
• power bureau coordinating individuals handling the entire operation
• power bureau managing power, yard managing yard, trainmasters managing crews

The first two work well. The last does not.
>
> On Day 1, the yard built the RO as directed.

If there was no power assigned, the train shouldn't have been built. It could be gathered up and sluffed. If there was no place to sluff it because the yard was straight across...oh, wait, the cars were in the yard as three trains. So much for no place to put them. I would have been on the phone with you hours before it reached this point.

In the days of BN deciding that the grainouts were only empties and refusing to allow power to be used to move them, I never let a yardmaster waste his engine hours building grainout trains.


> Likewise on Day 2. Maybe -- maybe - 'they' would
> have an inkling that problems were going to result
> with a RO train already 48 hours late acct no
> power.

They don't fall out of the sky. If the power bureau couldn't see it at this point, they need to do something different...like work on paper (not entirely facetious; I've experienced better power management on paper than using some power management computer systems).

>
> In retrospect [100% accuracy, right?], some
> re-arrangement of power should have occurred, to
> protect the RO trains, so they could run on time.

It's binary. You have power or you don't. If you have power, it is there or it is not there. If it is not there, its arrival can be predicted. They don't just fall out of the sky, so someone could have predicted the lack of power before the train was built. There is way too much sitting back and letting computer planning crank out ordinary days under extraordinary conditions.


> If a North Platte train is held for power, and
> gets bunched up at NP, it's a problem, but nowhere
> as severe as bunching that occurs at small yards
> like Oroville. That's why, back in the day, SP San
> Joaquin Supt. Lloyd Nations insisted that the West
> Colton-Bakersfield train - that handles the
> Mojaves - ALWAYS ran in preference to yet another
> Eugene empty train. He took care of HIS division
> first, when resources got tight.

When there is insufficient power to run all of the trains, the effect of every possibility must be considered individually before deciding what to do. Maybe, if there is insufficient power to run the normal trains, different trains are needed (what traffic must be moved, what traffic can wait, how do we build the stuff that must be moved?)

>
> Same thing should happened in this case. Run the
> 'local' on time, same time, every day.

Agreed. IT is just another "It's only a local" case like this: http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,3894595,3894973#msg-3894973

But if anything is tight, then folks need to talk and plan instead of blindly following the rubber stamp substitute for a plan into oblivion.

Software can be a great power tool for an expert user (or not, depending upon the software). Software can't run a railroad by itself.

TAW

TAW:

I'd agree in general with your points, with these possible exceptions:

UP's TCS properly schedules cars to trains, as was done in this situation. The RO trains were built each day according to the Plan. That is the yard's primary responsibility. The yard is responsible for getting the right cars on the right train, and setting it at the right time. Power Bureau is responsible for assigning power to trains, and they have the tools to determine when power will be available for trains. I'd say that the power situation at RV was pretty severe on the days in question, as UP has far fewer power delays than did SP. Local management [yard or Division] needs to intervene in the power assignment process, [working with the Power Bureau, not usurping it [which may be impossible under TCS] ] to properly handle the RO 'local'.

Running three back-to-back locals isn't a fault of the software, I'd say, but rather, the lack of proper intervention in the power assignment process, and in the train-ordering process.

I've worked many years for SP, in an environment where power was always short. Trains were often built to the availability of power, rather than to a Transportation Plan - because the Plan could not be fulfilled, due to chronic power shortages. This often leads to "building the easy ones first", regardless of the Plan. Having to choose between the SP way and the UP way, I'll choose the UP way every day.

JGF

JGFuller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TAW:
>
> I'd agree in general with your points, with these
> possible exceptions:
>
> UP's TCS properly schedules cars to trains, as was
> done in this situation. The RO trains were built
> each day according to the Plan. That is the yard's
> primary responsibility. The yard is responsible
> for getting the right cars on the right train, and
> setting it at the right time. Power Bureau is
> responsible for assigning power to trains, and
> they have the tools to determine when power will
> be available for trains.

That is exactly my problem with modern operation - the steering wheel guy, the gas pedal guy, the brake guy, the clutch guy, and the gearshift guy - but no driver.

>I'd say that the power
> situation at RV was pretty severe on the days in
> question, as UP has far fewer power delays than
> did SP.

It got to be pretty bad on SP even when I was there. Maybe UP doesn't run them until they don't run then leave them in the consist dead because there isn't time to set them out so they can be fixed.

> Local management needs to intervene in
> the power assignment process, ] to properly
> handle the RO 'local'.

This is where there still needs to be somebody to coordinate all of the pieces. There used to be a Chief Dispatcher dedicated to that and most that I have been exposed to kept it together quite well. Long ago, I had a Trains article about KCS. It noted that the Chief did such a good job of running the falling-apart railroad that it took the Chief leaving the office feet first for the enormity of the situation to be apparent to senior management (because the word passed up the food chain was that everything was fine).

>
> Running three back-to-back locals isn't a fault of
> the software, I'd say, but rather, the lack of
> proper intervention in the power assignment
> process, and in the train-ordering process.

That's pretty much my point. Everyone is reading the script and doing so admirably. No, that's not particularly the fault of the software except that the software could have been designed to detect the deviation from normal operation and didn't. It needn't have been designed to do something. Do something is situational and far beyond the knowledge and capabilities of any programmer. On software projects for which I advised the programmers, I told them to berely detect the exceptions and notify. Don't even dream of developing a fix.

>
> I've worked many years for SP, in an environment
> where power was always short. Trains were often
> built to the availability of power, rather than to
> a Transportation Plan - because the Plan could not
> be fulfilled, due to chronic power shortages.

...in which case the fantasy transportation plan should have been changed to fit reality. I fought fantasy transportation plans at BN for years.

The fundamental requirement of any transportation plan is that it must be executable under existing normal conditions

>This
> often leads to "building the easy ones first",
> regardless of the Plan. Having to choose between
> the SP way and the UP way, I'll choose the UP way
> every day.

The UP way is better, but in both reading here and my experience in the northwest, the UP way still appears to be deficient, largely because it is still the committee driving the car but no driver.

Managing transportation is similar to managing traffic.  In Olden Tymes, the basic operation was outlined in the timetable. The railroad could generally run itself; the train dispatcher watched for (anticipated) and handled the exceptions. In modern operation, everything is an exception. In Olden Tymes, the transportation plan could run the railroad, with the Chief Dispatcher (or whatever control center title you want to give...but the person responsible for driving the car) watching for and managing the exceptions. Now, either everything is an exception or exceptions are noticed after the meltdown. Improvised operation only works at a traffic level vastly lower than today's.

TAW



 

TAW wrote:
"Railroads do the same with management training. BN tried repeatedly through the 80s to be a truck company or a manufacturing company."

Remember they also tried to be the Stragic Air Command when they hired away one of its generals. It was thought he would bring discipline to
the operation.

I will always remember Dave Dealy's statement when disecting a similar cluster foxtrot on the Santa Fe: "If that is the best the ATM
there can do, I don't need that ATM !"

It has been my thought for a long time that these mega systems were making money in spite of themselves because of all the coal they
were hauling.  Although they can screw that up too, it is harder to screw up than loose car railroading.  As the coal loadings go down they will
really be scrambling if they find it necessary to attract new business that actually requires timely service.

Englewood Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As the coal loadings go down they
> will
> really be scrambling if they find it necessary to
> attract new business that actually requires timely
> service.

Think they'll know how?

TAW

TAW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Englewood Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > As the coal loadings go down they
> > will
> > really be scrambling if they find it necessary
> to
> > attract new business that actually requires
> timely
> > service.
>
> Think they'll know how?
>
> TAW

NO !  They will just keep merging until they can't merge anymore, take their profits, then walk away
and let the government sort it out.  The question will be which government: U.S. or Canada ?

This is interesting, as Jack and I relieved each other as ATMs at C of I for years!  The ATM was the hump yardmaster, the AGYM, and the trainmaster for the district at the same time.  As C of I is between LA and West Colton, it is very dependent on what the two major yards did.
In the early 70s, C of I had to build a pickup for the St Louis, Pine Bluff, Houston, Mountain Local, and the Kaiser Local every afternoon.  As there weren't anywhere near enough tracks to hold each block in its own track, at least three blocks had to be put in a track, in the order that LA and the dispatchers office figured they would run the trains.
The bowl had to be completely cleared out every 12 hours, as there were only enough tracks to block the outbound haulers and locals,  (known as night program.)  When the locals left, we had to immediately start humping the outbound cars that had come in during the night, to start building the East pickups, (day program.) 
After a day of humping what was in the yard, the Anaheim and Buena Park haulers came back with about 90 cars each.  Once we got them humped, the process of building the outbounds starts all over again.

This was all done while we were short on power, the West Dispatcher would call every day or two wanting to use one of our hump engines to push a stalled Westbound up the freeway, and they wouldn't run the Kaiser Local for lack of power.  Several times we would put six switchers together on a Saturday night and take a hundred cars to Colton to make room, and bring a train of loads back that Colton didn't have power for.

The point of this is that is what can be done when everybody pays attention and plans!

Back to Roseville and the Feather River Canyon!
If SOMEBODY had thought about what was out there, instead of it all being on "remote control,"  The Oroville block is first out on all three trains, and there is room in the Roseville departure tracks behind each of the three ROs.  So, pick the 20 Orovilles off of two of the other ROs, and shove the third one back in the clear.  Then make a cut behind the Oros and hang the FRED.  After it leaves, pick the shorts off of the first two, and put them on the third track of shorts, and cut behind them and hang the FRED.  When that train leaves, which will be quick, because he only has about thirty cars,  set the two other tracks of Ropers on the ones remaining, and you're done.  That is picking up two tracks and shoving them on a third, three times, for a small part of one yard engine's day.
G