3 ms·

Based on the article, it seems like the real issues is that, like many industries, railroads have ruthlessly sought efficiency, and it came at the expense of re

Based on the article, it seems like the real issues is that, like many industries, railroads have ruthlessly sought efficiency, and it came at the expense of resiliency. The networks, schedules, and systems are so brittle, and staffing levels so low that they can't bear people being "unexpectedly" absent. Of course, this brings to mind the saying: "Your failure to plan is not my emergency."

nobodyandproud 4y ago
Not the railroads, at least not inititally. The activist investors—a hedge fund in this case, kick started a toxic environment—are the ones that destroyed the more traditional management and squeezed out more profits. “ A decade ago, the activist investor Bill Ackman won a proxy battle at Canadian Pacific and proceeded to replace its management with a team led by Hunter Harrison, the railway executive who’d pioneered P.S.R. After imposing the gospel of “more with less” at Canadian Pacific, Harrison left to spread the good news to the freight giant CSX. At each firm, P.S.R. succeeded at generating higher returns. ”
- than3 4y ago
  Nothing about 1966 legislature, the Penn Central Bankruptcy (Fraud) by bankers orchestrating a bailout, or the Surface Transportation Board charter (1996)?
  - nobodyandproud 4y ago
    Can you explain what you mean?
    - than3 4y ago
      Research? In order to know how you got to this point and understand the driving important factors (so you know where you are going) you need to know what came before you. This is the first thing any intelligent, scientist or engineer looks at, what problems were there, and how were they solved. Those points in history were three pivotal times for the sector, some continue to still be issues. You google railroad issues, and they are front and center but no mention? 1966 enacted additional rail regulations, and those regulations always come at a additional cost. A business operates by generating above cost for a profit. Around 1970, Penn Centrals Board of Directors had a liquidity problem as many others had at the time, and the only people willing to provide a loan essentially set up an elaborate scheme to take control of the board, issue loans to themselves, and then seek a bailout by buying up the first right holder bonds in bankruptcy. This was used to bilk investors who received no disclosures normally required under securities law due to industry exceptions, despite significant conflicts of interest no one to my knowledge was ever punished for this fraud. This directly impacted many in the sector as many fortunes were lost, and rail was generally seen as a bad investment by the general public thereafter (and still is due to subsequent regulation and margins). 1996 STB was chartered, with additional regulation capping rail shipping rates either by ICC or STB. The companies generally can't charge more despite rising costs and devalued currency. Many rail companies can't even afford to have two engineers per run, god forbid something impairs the engineer during one of those runs. They can't even afford security guards (to prevent slow moving train theft). If the model no longer works, and can't change, what kind of solution will there ever be. Rail stops, you then have issues with food, water, and energy which spirals out from there, historically speaking.
      - nobodyandproud 4y ago
        I’m not going to do hours or days of research, but at best it’s hard to tell where the commuter based issues ended and freight related problems began for the history you’ve raised. The history is also muddied because of the car-heavy policies of the times. Consider that trucks are the single biggest contributor to road damage, but regular drivers subsidize most of the cost. Whereas rails own the tracks and have to maintain it themselves. From what I’ve read recently, freight rail has the reputation and niche of being the cheapest way to ship on land despite all of this, but it’s slow and the cost cutting have enabled unintended side effects like rail theft. I doubt the answer is to cut costs and headcount further; and perhaps factoring the cost of emissions can make rail more competitive.

nobodyandproud 4y ago

Not the railroads, at least not inititally. The activist investors—a hedge fund in this case, kick started a toxic environment—are the ones that destroyed the more traditional management and squeezed out more profits. “ A decade ago, the activist investor Bill Ackman won a proxy battle at Canadian Pacific and proceeded to replace its management with a team led by Hunter Harrison, the railway executive who’d pioneered P.S.R. After imposing the gospel of “more with less” at Canadian Pacific, Harrison left to spread the good news to the freight giant CSX. At each firm, P.S.R. succeeded at generating higher returns. ”

than3 4y ago
Nothing about 1966 legislature, the Penn Central Bankruptcy (Fraud) by bankers orchestrating a bailout, or the Surface Transportation Board charter (1996)?
- nobodyandproud 4y ago
  Can you explain what you mean?
  - than3 4y ago
    Research? In order to know how you got to this point and understand the driving important factors (so you know where you are going) you need to know what came before you. This is the first thing any intelligent, scientist or engineer looks at, what problems were there, and how were they solved. Those points in history were three pivotal times for the sector, some continue to still be issues. You google railroad issues, and they are front and center but no mention? 1966 enacted additional rail regulations, and those regulations always come at a additional cost. A business operates by generating above cost for a profit. Around 1970, Penn Centrals Board of Directors had a liquidity problem as many others had at the time, and the only people willing to provide a loan essentially set up an elaborate scheme to take control of the board, issue loans to themselves, and then seek a bailout by buying up the first right holder bonds in bankruptcy. This was used to bilk investors who received no disclosures normally required under securities law due to industry exceptions, despite significant conflicts of interest no one to my knowledge was ever punished for this fraud. This directly impacted many in the sector as many fortunes were lost, and rail was generally seen as a bad investment by the general public thereafter (and still is due to subsequent regulation and margins). 1996 STB was chartered, with additional regulation capping rail shipping rates either by ICC or STB. The companies generally can't charge more despite rising costs and devalued currency. Many rail companies can't even afford to have two engineers per run, god forbid something impairs the engineer during one of those runs. They can't even afford security guards (to prevent slow moving train theft). If the model no longer works, and can't change, what kind of solution will there ever be. Rail stops, you then have issues with food, water, and energy which spirals out from there, historically speaking.
    - nobodyandproud 4y ago
      I’m not going to do hours or days of research, but at best it’s hard to tell where the commuter based issues ended and freight related problems began for the history you’ve raised. The history is also muddied because of the car-heavy policies of the times. Consider that trucks are the single biggest contributor to road damage, but regular drivers subsidize most of the cost. Whereas rails own the tracks and have to maintain it themselves. From what I’ve read recently, freight rail has the reputation and niche of being the cheapest way to ship on land despite all of this, but it’s slow and the cost cutting have enabled unintended side effects like rail theft. I doubt the answer is to cut costs and headcount further; and perhaps factoring the cost of emissions can make rail more competitive.