Eastern Railroad Discussion > Provocative NS Communications Restructuring

From Trains Magazine on-line:"NS communications restructuring: One unique aspect of Norfolk Southern’s “reimagining,” — its label for Precision Scheduled Railroading-style changes — is that it has spun off its communication and signals group, historically part of its engineering department, into a stand-alone department known as Advanced Train Control. Somewhat surprisingly — at least at first glance — it also includes locomotives and mechanical shops.“While this might seem like an odd pairing,” said David Becker, NS chief engineer, design and construction, “it’s really very forward looking, given the level of integrated train-control technology found on a modern locomotive, and the potential opportunities to leverage the investments that have been made on PTC.”



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/16/20 13:17 by JPB.

JPB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>...... the potential opportunities to
> leverage the investments that have been made on
> PTC.”

From what I have been reading within industry news this is the direction most, if not all Class 1's are heading. Max use of the PTC platform.
NSSpike
 

Phil Maton
Villa Rica, GA

It's time to sweat the new asset.

Bob Wilcox
Charlottesville, VA
My Flickr Shots

JPB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From Ttains Magazine on-line:"NS communications
> restructuring: One unique aspect of Norfolk
>>snip<<
> design and construction, “it’s really very
> forward looking, given the level of integrated
> train-control technology found on a modern
> locomotive, and the potential opportunities to
> leverage the investments that have been made on
> PTC.”

There is an old saying that applies to this type of news release -- lipstick on a pig.

 

Will MacKenzie
Dundas, ON

My view is that locomotive maintenance management requires a lot of the same discipline (policies and procedures) that are required for successful IT management, and with PTC forcing locomotives to have an IP network, virtual machines (the Slot 10 computer is a Linux "PC"), software & firmware updates, a documented Configuration Management process, and so forth, there is a lot of logic to having technology and locomotives together.  It is true that in the long term this org structure makes continued R&D towards automation a little easier but I would not see this step as a prerequsite to that.  I anticipate that we will see more investment into data collection & analytics, as well as "driver assist" features (which is really what PTC, LEADER, etc are) until the eventual point that the future versions of those features are potentially able to "auto-pilot" the train.  We are a long way off from autonomous heavy-haul freight in most of the US, IMO.

Nobody able to put two and two together and say much more automated or remote mainline operations are coming to reduce labor costs, something which requires a signal system and an automated locomotive.

NS wants to be like a giant model railroad controlled from the great tower in Alanta. They will try
to combine PCT with DCC from model railroading

rantoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Disagree.  This is the beginning/continuation of 'unbundling rail operations' so the Class 1's can essentially outsource what had historically been in-company railroad operations.  Outsource facilitates lower costs by hiring services provided by non-union labor, generic lower standard materials, lower rate of return business models, etc.  Railroads don't want to be in the 'IT' business and would if possible / will outsource train scheduling, dispatching, operating responses (derail already contracted, such as to Hulcher).  Wall Street took the rail industry apart and now will take the individual companies apart, then combine pieces of different types of transportation into something able to go through another investment churn and burn cycle. Remember 'the company town' committed to the local community?

Not a pretty picture.  So railroads will soon just be ringleaders of a bunch of sub-contractors.  

CA_Sou_MA_Agent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not a pretty picture.  So railroads will soon
> just be ringleaders of a bunch of sub-contractors.

Hope they re-think this if that is the case. Seems to me that this is what Boeing has been doing in many areas - and it hasn't worked out very well.  

JUTower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My view is that locomotive maintenance management
> requires a lot of the same discipline (policies
> and procedures) that are required for successful
> IT management, and with PTC forcing locomotives to
> have an IP network, virtual machines (the Slot 10
> computer is a Linux "PC"), software & firmware
> updates, a documented Configuration Management
> process, and so forth, there is a lot of logic to
> having technology and locomotives together.  It
> is true that in the long term this org structure
> makes continued R&D towards automation a little
> easier but I would not see this step as a
> prerequsite to that.  I anticipate that we will
> see more investment into data collection &
> analytics, as well as "driver assist" features
> (which is really what PTC, LEADER, etc are) until
> the eventual point that the future versions of
> those features are potentially able to
> "auto-pilot" the train.  We are a long way off
> from autonomous heavy-haul freight in most of the
> US, IMO.
We are a long way off from anything autonomous.....A lot of back pedaling has been done with cars, etc.

I saw this thread a few days ago, but due to the press of other matters have not had an opportunity to chime in until now.

I think that there may be some fundamental misunderstanding of the action by NS. To quote the Trains magazine News Wire mention (and it is only a mention, and but one part of a longer article on several different topics): "One unique aspect of Norfolk Southern’s “reimagining,” — its label for Precision Scheduled Railroading-style changes — is that it has spun off its communication and signals group, historically part of its engineering department, into a stand-alone department known as Advanced Train Control. Somewhat surprisingly — at least at first glance — it also includes locomotives and mechanical shops." [Emphasis is mine].

The rest of the Trains News Wire item is correctly quoted by JPB in his original post. Those two paragraphs constitute the entire Trains News Wire item on that topic: http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2020/01/13-ns-restructuring-creates-department-for-signals-communications-locomotives

Note: this states that the C&S group has been "spun off" into a stand-alone department. That suggests a departmental realignment of functions within NS -- and does not suggest that those functions have been outsourced to a contractor outside Norfolk Southern. The News Wire item title also uses the word department: "New NS department combines communications, signals, locomotives"

Perhaps the phrase "spun off" misled JPB in making the original post, and others among us in commenting. That phrase is most commonly used when a corporate division or function is sold off, moved into a new fully- or semi-autonomous entity, or outsourced to an outside contractor which is not part of the parent corporation. It is not commonly used to describe a realignment of functions within the parent corporation in which functions of one department are moved into another department, or a new department is created for a re-combination of various functions. In such cases, which appears to apply here, the word "realignment" is more commonly used. This is true throughout the financial press, and can even be a formal principle in a style book for formal corporate communications. I have worked for some years professionally in technical writing functions in the information technology industry, and had exposure to style books that dealt not only with IT technical terminology for computers, software, servers, etc. for writing documentation and procedural manuals for such items, but also for general corporate communications. "Spin-off" would not have been the correct term to use for this action by NS in the style books I used."Realignment" or a similar variant, such as "realign", would have been more correct in those style books.

Much of the subsequent discussion that then followed then took up an understanding that this action by NS constituted outsourcing of these functions to an outside contractor -- which, quite notably, was not named. Sorry, folks, but I think that all of that quite possibly is just wrong, and that nothing has been outsourced outside of NS.

In regard to the comments made about outsourcing (when then genuinely occurs), a few thoughts. Outsourcing, particularly in technical areas, can cut both ways. In my many years in information technology, I worked for a very large IT firm that conducted many functions for large corporate clients which previously had those functions in-house. I always had mixed feelings about that. Both I and my colleagues had good work because the client had outsourced work to our firm. And we did well for the clients, frequently greatly improving the pool of technical knowledge, experience and skill that was available to them, and providing many advanced-level services which would have been difficult or costly for them to provide in-house. But I also felt badly for the folks at the client, who (in some cases) handed off functions from their now-defunct jobs to me and my colleagues directly and personally. Doing that is no fun, I assure you. It was of some comfort that the company I was part of was able to provide many advanced services which would have been difficult and costly for the client to staff-up, particularly in a labor market with high demand and limited supply of highly skilled and experienced people in the areas we supported. And maybe it was a kind of cosmic justice that in due course after some years that we on my team also had our own jobs outsourced (mine went overseas at first, then came back to the U.S. for regulatory reasons). Thus, when it comes to outsourcing and all of the comments made about the NS action and outsourcing of work in the railroad (or any other industry), I get it -- from both sides.

But, however any of us feel about this issue, in this case it does not appear to apply, as best as I read the Trains News Wire piece. Given the description in the piece, the fact that no outside contractor was named, and the lack of any mention of actual outsourcing action or naming of the contractor in Railway Age or any other trade journal (at least that I could find in a pretty thorough search), this appears really to be an in-house departmental functional realignment within Norfolk Southern. With more information, this conclusion could prove to be incorrect, and in fact there might be some actual outsourcing to an external contractor. But for now that does not appear to be the case.

With that in mind, let's all maybe take a step back, and a deep breath. The sky may not be falling at NS for C&S functions and staff. And let's hope that it doesn't.

Just my three cents.

MC
Muskegon, Michigan



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 01/18/20 13:36 by ironmtn.

JUTower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>  I anticipate that we will
> see more investment into data collection &
> analytics, as well as "driver assist" features
> (which is really what PTC, LEADER, etc are) until
> the eventual point that the future versions of
> those features are potentially able to
> "auto-pilot" the train.  We are a long way off
> from autonomous heavy-haul freight in most of the
> US, IMO.

LEADER and Trip Optimizer are well beyond the "driver assist" phase.  Both are used, hundreds of times each day, to run trains on "auto pilot" through a considerable portion of their territory.  Of the two, Trip Optimizer seems to be working better.  LEADER's auto control is programmed to run WAYYYYYY too aggressively, and often needs frequent human intervention to prevent over speeds at speed changes, turnouts, etcetera. Neither system seems to do well in less than ideal weather conditions, such as light rain, wet leaves, ice storms, and so forth.

The disturbing part, is that the railroads are pushing crews ... to the point of threatening discipline ... to use the system greater than 80% of the time.  This, despite frequent failures, both systems tearing trains in two, and multiple reports from operating personnel that the system is simply not ready to be used full time.  Apparently, the railroads have learned NOTHING from the 737 MAX debacle, and are plunging forward full steam into over reliance on the technology they've bought.  It's no longer about safety, and all about dollar signs.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/20 09:49 by bioyans.

I have loved this hobby all my long life but so many folks are so negative about any kind of change to something that doesn't belong to them...

Bill Deaver
Tehachapi, CA

I wonder if something like this will be outsourced only to be brought in house years later much like corporations constantly centralize and decentralize and then centralize again.

Victor A. Baird
http://www.erstwhilepublications.com

> so many folks are so negative about any kind of change

More so in railroading than in any other industry I've seen.

yea, reduced crews over the years, much less industries served, and it seems like very little attempt to take a large part of the current business away from the trucking industry.  

seems like reasons to complain to me...........

66

wabash2800 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wonder if something like this will be outsourced
> only to be brought in house years later much like
> corporations constantly centralize and
> decentralize and then centralize again.
>
> Victor A. Baird
> http://www.erstwhilepublications.com

Sorry, wabash2800, but I do not think we are talking about outsourcing outside of NS, but a corporate reorganization or realignment of functions within NS. The functions are being realigned in a new department. There is no mention in the Trains News Wire article that was the source of this whole thread of a third-party outside contractor to which the functions will be given.

I was probably too detailed in my previous post to make the point clear and readily understood. And I agree that corporations do sometimes outsource and then being functions back in-house again, and that they also sometimes decentralize and then re-centralize again. I have been through both processes in my career. But I don't think in this case that NS is doing any outsourcing of these functions to an outside third party.

I'm glad to be proven wrong. But I think if I'm incorrect and these functions indeed are being outsourced to an entity outside of NS, there needs to be more supporting evidence. I can't find it in the Trains News Wire piece, nor elsewhere in trade journals or NS corporate news releases.

I have long appreciated your commitment in your posts to fairness, balance and accuracy. I'm just trying to do the same here for all of us commenting in this thread.

MC
Muskegon, Michigan