Western Railroad Discussion > BNSF Matt Rose----------its about growth not cutting

https://www.railwayage.com/financeleasing/matt-rose-at-ref-2019-its-about-growth-not-cutting/

gmojim



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/19 07:27 by gmojim.

Thanks for the link.  He has some very interesting things to say.  I would add that Rose seems to have adopted the
Rob Krebs philosophy:  give the customer good service and they will use you more.  

Saw Jim Foote of CSX on CNBC yesterday and he made the comment that railroad service was not where it should be.
I thought that an interesting comment given the PSR philosphy on CSX.

Nick Tharalson,
Marion, IA

Well from a employee perspective they sure seem to be on a cost cutting binge right now. Fuel conservation rules are getting so bad I and others have stalled our trains out very recently. The ones we do not stall out are hitting single digit speeds on hills. Even when I have told the dispatcher we’re gonna stall if I do t put another unit on line they tell us no. Then we stall, sit for a half hour waiting for them to answer the radio. Don’t even think about taking the initiative and doing it yourself, less you want a ops failure or worse.

What Pacific5th said. BNSF may not be following the HH version of PSR, but it's definitely clamping down on the operating budget. In my small terminal alone there is a mandate to shave a million bucks off the budget. Many people are furloughed. I've only got 3 people below me in my terminal with a couple dozen either laid off or trying to chase their seniority elsewhere.

And as Matt Rose stated, PTC Version 2.0 is where they are going to try to reduce operating costs the most, by eliminating more operating employees through "attended automation". We are already running 10,000-foot, 16,000-ton trains with only two people but that won't be enough for them. That whole stupid "master conductor" thing is most certainly going to resurface in the near future. It's going to be a rocky road ahead for sure, especially for those with 10 or fewer years of seniority under their belts.

My only hope is that the forthcoming meltdown on the UP is going to be so bad that tons of business is diverted to BNSF and it drives the demand for labor higher, at least for awhile. That can only go so far though, since much of the system is already running at or over capacity.

After 38 years on Class 1 railroads, I convinced myself of one thing.  The big railroads DON'T want growth.  They want a set number of trains to run, with a fixed number of engines and employees.  Eliminating yards in their entirety convinces me of this even more as you restrict, or even wipe out completely,  the ability to handle a boom in business.  When NS shut down Chattanooga, the train delays became astronomical.  Recrews were quite numerous, but that cost was hidden by the use of fake train symbols and other methods.  I learned over the years just how often the lower tier of managers would manipulate the numbers of various things to make it appear all was well in the kingsom when in reality, it was in the moat.            

And meanwhile the next Borg, G&W, has employees out visiting customers, actively supplying new spurs, rebuilding old ones
and generally out looking for business. "Be wewy quiet, I'm out hunting for wabbits" he said making a noise like a carrot.

Out

UP reduced the number of SoCal haulers, it looked good on paper, a big reduction in trains and crew starts!   It must not have gone well, because soon the plan was heavily modified and most of the haulers were back.  Don't they use simulations to see how a plan will go?  Things went similarly in the Roseville Unit, a new plan, soon after that a big revamp of the new plan.  Morale has to be low, with all the layoffs, real and projected.  No doubt employees don't have a lot of incentive to help make these job-cutting plans work.  Probably not going well for the shippers, either.  

Next week UP is changing a lot of the Oregon manifest trains, a reflection of the smaller role Hinkle Yard now has.  We'll see how that goes.

mapboy

BNSF also has a computer program now that is “helping” to plan train lineups. It looks at all kinds of differant things and decides that we need extra crews here, so they will then DH crews to that terminal. In my area what’s been happening is crews are at the hotel longer, in many case exceeding 24 hours and we have DH’s going both directions often at the same time. The Chiefs are supposed to look at it and fix it when needed but that does not happen. So heldaway is through the roof, crew starts are more then needed, but I’m sure there saving money with there computer program.

Pacific5th Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The
> Chiefs are supposed to look at it and fix it when
> needed but that does not happen. So heldaway is
> through the roof, crew starts are more then
> needed, but I’m sure there saving money with
> there computer program.

Possible scenarios

• Workload was increased, allowed by automation, so there is no time to babysit the automation
• Workload was already impossible, so there is no time to babysit the automation
• Babysitting the automation actually requires doing the planning work by hand to see if it matches - probably a lost art
• General impossibility of planning crews, whether by hand or automated, when train operation is random
• Babysitting the automation does not include being allowed to change anything
• People working chief jobs intentionally not caring about the money blowing through gaping holes as a matter of self-defense.

TAW

callum_out Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And meanwhile the next Borg, G&W, has employees
> out visiting customers, actively supplying new
> spurs, rebuilding old ones
> and generally out looking for business. "Be wewy
> quiet, I'm out hunting for wabbits" he said making
> a noise like a carrot.
>
> Out

This might be the post of the year 2019, when we look back in a year...

Pacific5th and trainjunkie are right.  In my area, roadmasters are having to adjust their "headcount" by cutting 2-3 positions.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> callum_out Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > And meanwhile the next Borg, G&W, has employees
> > out visiting customers, actively supplying new
> > spurs, rebuilding old ones
> > and generally out looking for business. "Be
> wewy
> > quiet, I'm out hunting for wabbits" he said
> making
> > a noise like a carrot.
> >
> > Out
>
> This might be the post of the year 2019, when we
> look back in a year...

Unfortunately, most of the business that short lines drum up have to use the piece of crap Class One PSR BS railroads...  Those shortlines must have some damn good sales people to be able to sell them service that will have to go over a class one railroad that haven't a clue what service reallly is.

it will be interesting to see how reducing m.o.w. forces works out.........

66

goneon66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> it will be interesting to see how reducing m.o.w.
> forces works out.........
>
> 66

Reduce the volume being handled enough and you need less maintenance.

MP555 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pacific5th and trainjunkie are right.  In my
> area, roadmasters are having to adjust their
> "headcount" by cutting 2-3 positions.

At least it is not a percentage like BN did. There were four of us covering the Ferndale (WA) agency work. The edict came out to cut by 10%. 10% of 4 people is 0.4 people. Can't do that, so were three for the same work. Then another edict came out to cut by 10%. 10% of 3 people is 0.3 people. Can't do that, so we became two doing the same work as 4.

TAW