CSX's CEO explains what he thinks is wrong

[jis]

Interesting article in Trains:

https://www.trains.com/trn/news-rev...te-blaming-psr-for-rail-problems-is-nonsense/
In a way he is right in that the railroads, all of them, PSR or not, are essentially facing a virtual strike of sorts about which they can do nothing short of actually addressing the issue of job quality, something they have blissfully ignored for decades while doing the bidding of their Wall Street masters....

 

[joelkfla]

Magicians call that misdirection. "Nothing to see over there; look here instead."

 

[jis]

Magicians call that misdirection. "Nothing to see over there; look here instead."

Yeah, after they manage to fix the real issue with labor relations, which is quite appropriately exercising his mind, then he will come to the realization that their idea of PSR is also a problem. But until then he can live in his current paradise, and hopefully fix the real labor problem adequately instead of discovering a new way of shoving it under the carpet for another day.

 

[PaTrainFan]

He is beholden to his board and to investors first, to the ubiquitous "Wall Street" who insist on wringing every bit of "waste" out of his company. If his strategy is failing, he'll still default to what the shareholders, his bosses, demand, and his customers are left in the lurch.

 

[MARC Rider]

Too bad there aren't enough shareholders to force the company to reorganize as a B corporation.

In my opinion, all companies like railroads, power companies, etc. should be B corporations, but only the shareholders can make it happen.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

In-house training of employees. Employee that required months of training before there are able to work by themselves. Then you provide them with a brutal work schedule, with little time off. Not surprised they having staffing issues.

That said, everyone is short handed it seem.

 

[pennyk]

MODERATOR's NOTE: Please keep the discussion in this thread on the topic of CSX. A couple of off topic/political comments were removed and others may be removed in the future.

Edit to add: additional off topic posts were removed.

Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[jis]

As you can see CSX is having problems very similar to Amtrak....

https://www.freightwaves.com/news/h...bound?utm_content=215519287&utm_medium=social

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

The story stated “CSX’s operating ratio rose from 43.4% to 55.4%” last quarter. So they making 45 cents per ever dollar they bring in right now.

Another company that could lower there rates to help keep inflation at bay. When your a monopoly you’re the one that get to determine market rate.

 

[dlagrua]

In this story we have CSX CEO complaining about scheduling and labor problems while his corporation brings in a 45% profit. It should be obvious that Wall Street and corporate America are now running the show.

 

[PaTrainFan]

Classic corporate-speak during retrenchment is that they are "under performing." That doesn't necessarily mean money-losing, just that they aren't making enough money to satisfy investors.

 

[west point]

What do all posters think of this statement from Fritz? Note it comes from trains news wire.

Fritz says. “We run one-third fewer trains, which require one-third fewer locomotives, and also one-third fewer people running the trains and maintaining the locomotives.”

 

[toddinde]

What do all posters think of this statement from Fritz? Note it comes from trains news wire.

Fritz says. “We run one-third fewer trains, which require one-third fewer locomotives, and also one-third fewer people running the trains and maintaining the locomotives.”

It’s ridiculous on its face. Nothing works like that. If I have a paella pan, rice and spices, and make paella once a week, or I make it three times a week, there’s a small incremental cost for the second two meals, but it’s not three times. You have mechanics, diesel houses, locomotives, etc. Once you have that base, adding more trains doesn’t increase costs that much. For somebody to say that is pretty silly.

 

[MARC Rider]

It’s ridiculous on its face. Nothing works like that. If I have a paella pan, rice and spices, and make paella once a week, or I make it three times a week, there’s a small incremental cost for the second two meals, but it’s not three times. You have mechanics, diesel houses, locomotives, etc. Once you have that base, adding more trains doesn’t increase costs that much. For somebody to say that is pretty silly.

Yeah, consider that the overhead is the same (or pretty close to the same) for 3 trains as it is for two trains. That means that the two trains have to recover the same amount of overhead as the three trains did. That means you might have to charge more to shippers to cover the costs of the 2 trains, unless, of course you make the trains bigger and longer, which is what they did. The only problem, of course, is that the infrastructure can't really handle big, long trains, whereas it could handle three shorter trains with no problem. Also, you need more locomotives for the two really big, long trains, so maybe you're not really cutting the number of locomotives in use by a third by only running 2 really big trains. And if your infrastructure can't handle the really big, long trains, you might be losing more in delays, breakdown, lost business, etc. than you're gaining by having fewer people on the payroll to run the trains. I wonder if these whiz-kid MBAs actually conducted a proper life-cycle cost analysis on their clever ideas on how to save money. Even if they did, because most whiz-kid MBAs don't have actual railroad experience, they probably don't have a clue about the proper data to use for such an analysis.

 

[joelkfla]

What do all posters think of this statement from Fritz? Note it comes from trains news wire.

Fritz says. “We run one-third fewer trains, which require one-third fewer locomotives, and also one-third fewer people running the trains and maintaining the locomotives.”

Who's Fritz?

I don't see any links in the post.

 

[toddinde]

Yeah, consider that the overhead is the same (or pretty close to the same) for 3 trains as it is for two trains. That means that the two trains have to recover the same amount of overhead as the three trains did. That means you might have to charge more to shippers to cover the costs of the 2 trains, unless, of course you make the trains bigger and longer, which is what they did. The only problem, of course, is that the infrastructure can't really handle big, long trains, whereas it could handle three shorter trains with no problem. Also, you need more locomotives for the two really big, long trains, so maybe you're not really cutting the number of locomotives in use by a third by only running 2 really big trains. And if your infrastructure can't handle the really big, long trains, you might be losing more in delays, breakdown, lost business, etc. than you're gaining by having fewer people on the payroll to run the trains. I wonder if these whiz-kid MBAs actually conducted a proper life-cycle cost analysis on their clever ideas on how to save money. Even if they did, because most whiz-kid MBAs don't have actual railroad experience, they probably don't have a clue about the proper data to use for such an analysis.

Very well said. I think most of these schemes like precision scheduled railroading just don’t hold up. It’s too bad that our railroad network is being hacked apart because of a hair brain schemes.