Railroaders' Nostalgia > Railroad employment graphic help

I want to make a graphic that shows the reduction in railroad employees over the last several decades. I'm trying to figure out a visual presentation that is simple enough for a public audience to understand.
Some things I know, like if I show a simplified view of a train, I can show from 5 crewmembers down to 2 or 1.

What I am wondering about is the reduction of lineside employees. I'll have to pick a compressed frame of reference, like 10 miles of track. Or maybe a terminal.

In that, I would show the loss of a MOW employees, clerks, operators, and others, but I just don't quite know the numbers that used to be present vs. what is present now.

Does anyone have some estimates? If this is unclear, I can elaborate.

I don't know how much help they would give you, but a call to the Railroad Retirement Board might help by giving you some employment figures over the years.-BMT

May also want to contrast tonnage figures; railroad mileage; operating ratios; accident rates; mechanization... check annual reports for various publical traded companies for data...

Thanks. I can find the overall employment figures from different years or decades, and the drop is massive. What I'd like to do, though, is visually show the reductions with a bit more detail. So if I depict a train, I can show the caboose being replaced with an EOT. If I show a tower, it can be shown as closed. I think the more I can be specific, the more effective the visual. So I'm trying to get a sense of how many particular jobs there might have been over an stretch of reasonably busy railroad.

I went to work for Santa Fe in August 1968 as a management trainee. One of the most vivid memories I have is that Santa Fe had about 32,000 employees in 1968 along with about 32,000 freight cars. In 1990, these numbers were 13,300 employees and about 14,500 freight cars. The two parallel declines have always intrigued me. I 1990, Santa Fe was moving more freight than ever but so much more efficiently. I wonder if freight railroads would have survived until 2000 if they had not made enormous improvements in their efficiency.

Norm

Norman Orfall
Helendale, CA
TIOGA PASS, a private railcar

inCHI Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What I am wondering about is the reduction of lineside employees. I'll have to pick a compressed
> frame of reference, like 10 miles of track. Or maybe a terminal.
>
> In that, I would show the loss of a MOW employees, clerks, operators, and others, but I just don't
> quite know the numbers that used to be present vs. what is present now.
>
> Does anyone have some estimates? If this is unclear, I can elaborate.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has some numbers by occupation. Their 2011 numbers are on the internet here:

http://www.railserve.com/Railroad_Employment_Jobs/railroad_occupations_wages.html

The AAR also has a lot of data, but you have to pay to get their publications. Some Transportation Libraries (Northwestern University's is one) have subscriptions and will let you see the information at no cost - I viewed the AAR's "Analysis of Class I Railroads" that way a few years ago.

Be careful on using tonnage and car numbers. Tonnage should still be up because capacity has increased. Also a lot of railroad cars are now leased not railroad owned.

Here is what has happened to traffic management.

TAW

---

Wow, that chart is striking. Thanks!

This is an early draft of one portion of this:

---

inCHI Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow, that chart is striking. Thanks!
>
> This is an early draft of one portion of this:


Great chart. The labor side of me would really like to see the comparison in wages. Roughly speaking, the amount of pay has not increased with the amount of work done over the years.

Posted from iPhone

WOW WE
This long a train must make for a lot off derailments.
I for 1 would not like to handle shuck a long train on a hill or twisty track,..
Some where in this train has to be a bad wheel onto a point or junction and WOW WEEEE
yours snoopy

Off-pending Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> inCHI Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------

> Great chart. The labor side of me would really
> like to see the comparison in wages. Roughly
> speaking, the amount of pay has not increased with
> the amount of work done over the years.

Great point, I should add that. Have to do some of the calculations. I did read yesterday about some of the past agreements and how the wage gains and losses have left the present at or lower than decades ago. I know the NCCC proposals call for 0% in 15,16,17; and miserly 2% once ratified, and then health care costs destroy that 2%

inCHI Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Off-pending Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > inCHI Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>

>
> Great point, I should add that. Have to do some of
> the calculations. I did read yesterday about some
> of the past agreements and how the wage gains and
> losses have left the present at or lower than
> decades ago. I know the NCCC proposals call for 0%
> in 15,16,17; and miserly 2% once ratified, and
> then health care costs destroy that 2%

Our last contract was a step backwards and the proposed next contract is so ugly that I'd rather work my last nine years without a raise that see it ratified.

crackerjackhoghead Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Our last contract was a step backwards and the proposed next contract is so ugly that I'd rather
> work my last nine years without a raise that see it ratified.

Agreed. The proposal can be summed up in one word: insulting

ble692 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> crackerjackhoghead Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Our last contract was a step backwards and the
> proposed next contract is so ugly that I'd rather
> > work my last nine years without a raise that see
> it ratified.
>
> Agreed. The proposal can be summed up in one word:
> insulting


Sounds like you guys got the same kind of contract we got at AT&T. A bad one...

ble692 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> crackerjackhoghead Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Our last contract was a step backwards and the
> proposed next contract is so ugly that I'd rather
> > work my last nine years without a raise that see
> it ratified.
>
> Agreed. The proposal can be summed up in one word:
> insulting

if u don't mind, what are the worse parts of the proposal? i've been gone for a while and am curious.....

66

goneon66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> if u don't mind, what are the worse parts of the
> proposal? i've been gone for a while and am
> curious.....

Here is a link to an article regarding it, with a link in the article to the actual proposal.

https://www.ble-t.org/pr/news/newsflash.asp?id=5974

Basically the raises are next to nothing, the health and welfare cost increases to the members would more than offset the raises resulting in a net loss in pay, and the carriers pretty much want all the work rules back that have been fought for and won by the unions for their members over the last 100+ years. Like I said in my last post, the proposal is insulting.

ble692 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
the carriers pretty much want
> all the work rules back that have been fought for
> and won by the unions for their members over the
> last 100+ years. Like I said in my last post, the
> proposal is insulting.

Not to mention the abolition of the whole seniority system and assigned jobs. Just one big extraboard, no matter how many years you have in.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/29/17 04:42 by crackerjackhoghead.