“It Is Getting Worse. People Are Leaving”(railwayage.com)
railwayage.com
“It Is Getting Worse. People Are Leaving”
https://www.railwayage.com/regulatory/it-is-getting-worse-people-are-leaving/
384 comments
They have and it is slowing them down, but they're using different metrics to define and track productivity. If you're interested in hearing about it this guy has a pretty good perspective on the overall issues:
https://youtu.be/Q0rk5tnrFqA?t=9300
https://youtu.be/Q0rk5tnrFqA?t=9300
Can you perhaps summarize?
I gave it a shot (watched the testimony at the linked timestamp, which was just a few minutes). Here's what I got from it, but I didn't fully understand everything:
This guy is a "yard master" - the air traffic controller of the rail industry.
1. Railroads are focused on "units per train" - increasing the length of the trains.
- They're running long trains that are 10k+ feet long, but we have many old RR yards from WWII era that only fit 3k ft long trains. Takes 3 hours to put these trains together exiting the yard and no other trains can use the yard during that time.
- Something I didn't understand that causes train cars to derail on bridges
- Some trains are longer than the range of the 2 way radios that conductors typically use. There's a procedure that involves a conductor inspecting the train as it goes by, and apparently they can't always contact the train.
2. Consolidation of terminals.
- Some regional stations for inspecting coal trains closed down. I didn't understand this explanation either.
- Moving yard masters to a central location and having them run the yard with cameras. Has resulted in peoples' deaths
3. Workload on people. Yard masters work 16h/day 365 days/year.
4. Management metrics reducing headcount + extra engines / equipment leads to lack of redundancy
Two things he'd ask for:
- Max 8k ft length of a train
- Disincentivize any reason to store a locomotive
This guy is a "yard master" - the air traffic controller of the rail industry.
1. Railroads are focused on "units per train" - increasing the length of the trains.
- They're running long trains that are 10k+ feet long, but we have many old RR yards from WWII era that only fit 3k ft long trains. Takes 3 hours to put these trains together exiting the yard and no other trains can use the yard during that time.
- Something I didn't understand that causes train cars to derail on bridges
- Some trains are longer than the range of the 2 way radios that conductors typically use. There's a procedure that involves a conductor inspecting the train as it goes by, and apparently they can't always contact the train.
2. Consolidation of terminals.
- Some regional stations for inspecting coal trains closed down. I didn't understand this explanation either.
- Moving yard masters to a central location and having them run the yard with cameras. Has resulted in peoples' deaths
3. Workload on people. Yard masters work 16h/day 365 days/year.
4. Management metrics reducing headcount + extra engines / equipment leads to lack of redundancy
Two things he'd ask for:
- Max 8k ft length of a train
- Disincentivize any reason to store a locomotive
> I would be surprised if this correlated with a large increase in derailments, as that would have a tremendous impact on average network speed and thus profit.
That would be true in a non-monopolistic situation, but it's well known from the investor side that what the railroads are doing around rates is driven by collusion and lack of regulation.
CSX stock was at $8 in 2016 and is at ~$33.50 now. There is no amount of throughput increase that could drive those financial results. You could lever up your cap structure with tons of debt (even 6-7x) and not even get close to this kind of return on equity.
Throughput doesn't matter when you have pricing power; in fact, abrupt drops in throughput make people even more desperate so that they can raise the freight rates even more.
That would be true in a non-monopolistic situation, but it's well known from the investor side that what the railroads are doing around rates is driven by collusion and lack of regulation.
CSX stock was at $8 in 2016 and is at ~$33.50 now. There is no amount of throughput increase that could drive those financial results. You could lever up your cap structure with tons of debt (even 6-7x) and not even get close to this kind of return on equity.
Throughput doesn't matter when you have pricing power; in fact, abrupt drops in throughput make people even more desperate so that they can raise the freight rates even more.
and this is why strong and intelligent regulation of many structurally monopolistic industries is essential. (and known in Europe)
That was an interesting comment in itself, thanks for the insight!
> railroads were always hyper-focused on increasing throughput.
Throughput optimization destroying latency- sounds like bufferbloat!
Throughput optimization destroying latency- sounds like bufferbloat!
I also live in Ames, Iowa, where the author resides. I live less than a mile from the track segment he is talking about, owned and operated by Union Pacific. While I'm pretty skeptical of this author's individual concerns given the twice-removed nature of the statements from their "source", trains have unmistakably gotten longer during my 15 years near these tracks, and they are moving faster.
A hazmat situation impacting only a one-mile radius around the tracks could effect up to 30 to 40 thousand people here. I interned for Union Pacific while in college, and yes, the company will state that safety is their number one priority, but it was very clear that their business was to profit by optimizing every single little part of their business for maximum efficiency. The company has an open distain for regulations, especially safety-related regulations, and did not shy away from sharing those views internally. I would not be at all surprised if crews are being abused, and safety sidelined, for the sake of maximizing profit.
A hazmat situation impacting only a one-mile radius around the tracks could effect up to 30 to 40 thousand people here. I interned for Union Pacific while in college, and yes, the company will state that safety is their number one priority, but it was very clear that their business was to profit by optimizing every single little part of their business for maximum efficiency. The company has an open distain for regulations, especially safety-related regulations, and did not shy away from sharing those views internally. I would not be at all surprised if crews are being abused, and safety sidelined, for the sake of maximizing profit.
That’s super interesting to me. It’ll take a disaster to fix it.
I worked in oil and gas for a while, and they were pathologically obsessed with safety. Like, “you’ll be fired for not using the handrail in the HQ stairwell” pathological. It was good! There was never a question about how to value a trade off.
Open disdain for safety regulations seems like a recipe for disaster.
I worked in oil and gas for a while, and they were pathologically obsessed with safety. Like, “you’ll be fired for not using the handrail in the HQ stairwell” pathological. It was good! There was never a question about how to value a trade off.
Open disdain for safety regulations seems like a recipe for disaster.
Funny you mention this. Shell was an angel funder at one of my first startup and one of their demands was quite literally to add handrails to the stairwell between the first and second floors of my office.
I worked for XOM for years which also really pushed the "safety culture" in the office. We even had the same "fired for not using the handrail in front of the boss" stories. Wild how memes like that must have spread through the industry.
10 years later and I still can't use the stairs without instinctively grabbing for a handrail.
10 years later and I still can't use the stairs without instinctively grabbing for a handrail.
I worked as a consultant for BP shortly after the Deepwater Horizon spill.
I can't speak to what the (office) safety culture was like in the pre-spill days but at the time I found the office rules more than a bit ironic considering, you know, their most recent safety disaster was viewable from space.
I always thought of their rules as bike-shedding...but for safety regulations, with reasoning looking like:
1. Our biggest safety vulnerability is industrial infrastructure failures.
2. We can't make it safer (without spending money). We're out of compliance with federally-mandated inspection schedules but paying those fines is cheaper than risking discovering critical issues that'll be costly to repair. Plus, all those drill bits and pipes are hard to understand so it's better if we just don't think about it.
3. Now we have an unmitigated disaster on our hands and we must project that we're a safety-minded organization.
4. Quick! Instructing employees to tattle on each other about laptop charger trip hazards costs us nothing and is simple enough for everyone to understand.
5. So let's disproportionately obsess about that.
What's more (and even more ironic) is that mild trip hazards weren't even the biggest risk in the office. Apparently, the duty of regularly cleaning the office refrigerator wasn't assigned to any staff. It was cleaned on an ad-hoc basis by...idk...whoever got fed up with it first? So, first off--constant food safety issues are bad enough. But, one day, this gross fridge was apparently so full of abandoned paper-bag lunches that one resting against the refrigerator bulb began smoldering and smoking. We all evacuated the building and received a collective "stern talking to" about paper-bag-on-incandescent-refrigerator-bulb safety. Which, OK, I guess no one saw that one coming--but, like, still--can we all agree that the big, tar-covered elephant in the room is still clearly the crude-oil volcano in the Gulf of Mexico.
I can't speak to what the (office) safety culture was like in the pre-spill days but at the time I found the office rules more than a bit ironic considering, you know, their most recent safety disaster was viewable from space.
I always thought of their rules as bike-shedding...but for safety regulations, with reasoning looking like:
1. Our biggest safety vulnerability is industrial infrastructure failures.
2. We can't make it safer (without spending money). We're out of compliance with federally-mandated inspection schedules but paying those fines is cheaper than risking discovering critical issues that'll be costly to repair. Plus, all those drill bits and pipes are hard to understand so it's better if we just don't think about it.
3. Now we have an unmitigated disaster on our hands and we must project that we're a safety-minded organization.
4. Quick! Instructing employees to tattle on each other about laptop charger trip hazards costs us nothing and is simple enough for everyone to understand.
5. So let's disproportionately obsess about that.
What's more (and even more ironic) is that mild trip hazards weren't even the biggest risk in the office. Apparently, the duty of regularly cleaning the office refrigerator wasn't assigned to any staff. It was cleaned on an ad-hoc basis by...idk...whoever got fed up with it first? So, first off--constant food safety issues are bad enough. But, one day, this gross fridge was apparently so full of abandoned paper-bag lunches that one resting against the refrigerator bulb began smoldering and smoking. We all evacuated the building and received a collective "stern talking to" about paper-bag-on-incandescent-refrigerator-bulb safety. Which, OK, I guess no one saw that one coming--but, like, still--can we all agree that the big, tar-covered elephant in the room is still clearly the crude-oil volcano in the Gulf of Mexico.
I was consulting at BP back in 2002 - even back then the health and safety environment inside their offices (I was all over the world with them) was the same as their oil rigs ... no trip hazards go unreported, always hold the handrails, always cover a hot drink, no calls in the car even with handsfree, very low speed-limits (with cameras) on-site etc - it's lived with me all my days and is very valuable safety advice TBH - none of it was theatre.
Also, every meeting would start with a safety announcement, all fire exits would be noted etc. I've also worked for BHP in Oz and it was exactly the same - drill this into everyone and the risk of an accident is reduced
Also, every meeting would start with a safety announcement, all fire exits would be noted etc. I've also worked for BHP in Oz and it was exactly the same - drill this into everyone and the risk of an accident is reduced
Actually having an adult discussion about safety tradeoffs at scale in this day and age of "but if it even saves one life" isn't possible. You simply can't go on record having acknowledged that tradeoffs even exist. Wherever you draw the cost:benefit line, no matter how generous, someone will try and make you look like the bad guy for not setting it a little more conservatively.
And that's why they talked about charger cables and not the oil spewing elephant in the room.
And that's why they talked about charger cables and not the oil spewing elephant in the room.
Safety theatre reminds me of COVID. Why upgrade HVAC it's too expensive, so let's just install plexiglass everywhere because people don't understand fluid dynamics.
> I worked as a consultant for BP shortly after the Deepwater Horizon spill.
Then you'll remember that they were given an industry award for safety that year. Yes, after the disaster.
Then you'll remember that they were given an industry award for safety that year. Yes, after the disaster.
I worked at a Shell site a few years earlier. The stats on accident in the office were surprisingly high. But the #1 cause of lost time was accidents on the 20 minute drive to the plant each day, especially at twilight.
That's so odd. I worked on a project involving some Chevron employees once, and we had a strange number of conversations about employer liability should someone injure themselves in the office. It's been years, but your comment reminded me. I thought it was just a quirk of that team, like one of them was just puzzlingly obsessed with it. Maybe the oil industry is just inexplicably plagued by slip-and-fall lawsuits?
It's not just slip-and-fall. Northern Alberta SAGD sites have 20km/h speed limits on premise - if you're a contractor you WILL be fired individually for going over (yes, they measure), and if you're a contracting firm two violations by your people will get your whole company kicked off site.
Oil and gas is safety obsessed.
Oil and gas is safety obsessed.
> Oil and gas is safety obsessed.
And yet…
And yet…
And yet they work on some of the most complex, hostile environments and typically operate safely.
People crash trucks (the rate at which they crash trucks is kinda impressive tbh), injure hands and backs moving heavy things around, get nasty stuff in their face all the time.
But those incidents cannot easily be characterized, quantifies and evaluated but a bunch of clipboard warrior paper pushers so instead you get a zero tolerance speed limit policy and everyone pats themselves on the back.
But those incidents cannot easily be characterized, quantifies and evaluated but a bunch of clipboard warrior paper pushers so instead you get a zero tolerance speed limit policy and everyone pats themselves on the back.
People only report it when it's going to be, or already is a big deal, but any injury is supposed to be reported. But yeah, on top of that there is a lot of shit that's real slow to build, RSI for example, or diabetes. Of course with all the rules, anybody that does get injured is going to be painted liable for it, and if you don't get your story straight it's an employment risk to the injured.
Oil is slippery, and humans walking upright fall easily on slippery surfaces :) Check out e.g. HexArmor Rig Lizard gloves for the kinds of specialized safety gear they use to get a good cut-resistant grip on stuff.
It's both the liability issue, but also how safety incentives are set at the highest level. It is not uncommon for senior exec to get bonuses tied to lost time incidents, hazard reporting and other safety metrics, which get cascaded down through the org (In Australia at least).
One office worker spraining an ankle on the stairs and missing a day of work muddies up the KPI's. Reinforcing the safety culture across the whole organisation between the high risk field work and office drones keeps the kpi's green, but its also an easier message to deliver to staff - everyone must play by the same rules.
One office worker spraining an ankle on the stairs and missing a day of work muddies up the KPI's. Reinforcing the safety culture across the whole organisation between the high risk field work and office drones keeps the kpi's green, but its also an easier message to deliver to staff - everyone must play by the same rules.
It makes for a nice dog and pony show for the office workers who profess to care.
In the field the reality is that you can't do X, Y and Z because safety but if T, U and V don't get done on schedul-ish you and your buddies are fired so "don't ask don't tell" becomes the law of the land. In practice what this means is everything reverts to "common sense of the people doing the work" and everyone can be fired on a whim (because of the rampant safety policy violations).
Contrary to what the white collar internet may tell you, the workers aren't idiots. They don't disdain safety. They do this work every day and have plenty of experience with, PPE, equipment interlocks and guards helping them out (lord knows they're running on blow and monster energy at least one day a month). They disdain the office bound types and the clipboard warriors that don't understand the realities of the jobs they do yet feel entitled to create and perpetuate the incentive structure (in many areas, not just safety) they work under and that makes their jobs more miserable than they have to be.
My experience is with the industry in the US west, offshore and maple syrup land may be different.
In the field the reality is that you can't do X, Y and Z because safety but if T, U and V don't get done on schedul-ish you and your buddies are fired so "don't ask don't tell" becomes the law of the land. In practice what this means is everything reverts to "common sense of the people doing the work" and everyone can be fired on a whim (because of the rampant safety policy violations).
Contrary to what the white collar internet may tell you, the workers aren't idiots. They don't disdain safety. They do this work every day and have plenty of experience with, PPE, equipment interlocks and guards helping them out (lord knows they're running on blow and monster energy at least one day a month). They disdain the office bound types and the clipboard warriors that don't understand the realities of the jobs they do yet feel entitled to create and perpetuate the incentive structure (in many areas, not just safety) they work under and that makes their jobs more miserable than they have to be.
My experience is with the industry in the US west, offshore and maple syrup land may be different.
This is a good point. Of course, I only ever had exposure to the white collar folks.
Those white collar folks could never make the work safe. But they could sure as hell f_ck it up. At least from what I saw, the safety theater was tremendously effective at telling the white collar folks not to demand stupid sh_t: once the guy on the ground says the magic words ("that's not safe"), conversation over. YOU, project manager/junior exec, didn't plan well enough. The guy on the ground is just doing his job.
Those white collar folks could never make the work safe. But they could sure as hell f_ck it up. At least from what I saw, the safety theater was tremendously effective at telling the white collar folks not to demand stupid sh_t: once the guy on the ground says the magic words ("that's not safe"), conversation over. YOU, project manager/junior exec, didn't plan well enough. The guy on the ground is just doing his job.
Absolutely perfectly well put. It's always seemed to me to be a way to derive a narrative of plausible deniability, and nothing more.
When I was a Civil engineer with a bridge project that was over a railway, it was required that I take a safety class from BNSF about how to be near the rails, and what not to do. The first thing in the class was that they noted the e,regency exit from the room. (Iirc, the room had one door, to the outside, that we had just walked through to get in the room).
My sister was in oil & gas for about 15 years, up until a couple years ago.
The majors varied pretty dramatically in regards to safety. XOM, COP, and Shell were excellent. Chevron pretty good. BP was terrible - all safety theater without a whole lot of safety.
My sister was working at a competitor around the time Deepwater Horizon went down, and had previously worked at BP. She was not at all surprised that it happened to BP, and had complained to us around 2005 that BP was a disaster waiting to happen.
The majors varied pretty dramatically in regards to safety. XOM, COP, and Shell were excellent. Chevron pretty good. BP was terrible - all safety theater without a whole lot of safety.
My sister was working at a competitor around the time Deepwater Horizon went down, and had previously worked at BP. She was not at all surprised that it happened to BP, and had complained to us around 2005 that BP was a disaster waiting to happen.
In the modern world, it’ll take a disaster for anyone to pay any attention at all, but all they have to do is wait a few weeks for everyone to pay attention to something else.
Was this before or after Deepwater Horizon? From what I understand, there was open disdain for proper processes.
I've been to some customer hq/office sites in oil/chemical industries and experienced similar.
One place had indoor escalator that you weren't allowed to walk on and must always hold the handrail as well. When it was broken, you couldn't use it as stairs and instead had to take this terrifying (though likely very safe) elevator.
Another rule I liked was to not allow strangers on the boat when you're rowing across the river. What river? What boats? What year was this written?
One place had indoor escalator that you weren't allowed to walk on and must always hold the handrail as well. When it was broken, you couldn't use it as stairs and instead had to take this terrifying (though likely very safe) elevator.
Another rule I liked was to not allow strangers on the boat when you're rowing across the river. What river? What boats? What year was this written?
> It’ll take a disaster to fix it.
It didn't happen in the US, but it has happened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaste...
It didn't happen in the US, but it has happened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaste...
There have been some horrible incidents in the US:
https://www.postandcourier.com/aikenstandard/news/rememberin...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_rail_accidents
https://www.postandcourier.com/aikenstandard/news/rememberin...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_rail_accidents
The pathological obsession with safety in the industry is a smoke-screen used to shield them from liability when accidents inevitably occur.
They will find ways to blame employee error instead of taking responsibility when their own policies contribute to accidents, especially if there are fatalities. The dead guy probably did it to himself. It couldn't possibly be related to lack of sleep, lack of maintenance of important tools in use at the time, etc.
It is definitely one industry where HR has the company's back and you are fucked if you raise any issues with them. I had a situation where I violated a company policy on location one time and this violation caused my crew and therefore the company, to be kicked off the location and replaced by a competitor's crew with a competing tool. This resulted in a nice meeting with my Field Service Manager (my direct boss), my Regional Service Manager (his direct boss), and a person whom I discovered after the meeting was a company lawyer who was present only to document my clear failure so that they could justify termination.
Questions were asked by my bosses and I responded with truthful answers and long-winded descriptions of the thought processes behind those actions. When they ran out of questions and thought they had clearly documented that I broke the company's rules about what I could tell clients about their tool's performance and that termination was justified, the lawyer introduced himself to me. I had had no idea who he was up to then, he was just a suit with a notepad who spent his time there taking notes.
He thanked me for my thoughtful replies and turned to my bosses and told them that they could not fire me since the client had specifically asked me to answer his question based on my own personal experiences and that when I answered I was careful to base my answer only on my own personal experience - for better or worse. Additionally, since they knew that the experiences that I used in answering the client's questions were true and not embellished (they both had direct knowledge of the problems I had encountered and later described), there were no grounds to terminate.
Up to that point I had no idea that they were trying to terminate me. Basically, the company policy was to parrot the marketing bullshit and lie to the client about tool performance characteristics under adverse conditions.
When the lawyer had delivered the bad news to them he stood up and extended his hand, thanked me for my time and told me to keep up the good work.
I was fortunate that I had been able to send resumes several weeks before while I was recuperating from job-related knee surgery. One of those resumes ended up giving my life back to me and allowing me to expand my career and eventually become a consultant to the industry. Though its been thirty years now I can still say - Fuck Scumbagger.
They will find ways to blame employee error instead of taking responsibility when their own policies contribute to accidents, especially if there are fatalities. The dead guy probably did it to himself. It couldn't possibly be related to lack of sleep, lack of maintenance of important tools in use at the time, etc.
It is definitely one industry where HR has the company's back and you are fucked if you raise any issues with them. I had a situation where I violated a company policy on location one time and this violation caused my crew and therefore the company, to be kicked off the location and replaced by a competitor's crew with a competing tool. This resulted in a nice meeting with my Field Service Manager (my direct boss), my Regional Service Manager (his direct boss), and a person whom I discovered after the meeting was a company lawyer who was present only to document my clear failure so that they could justify termination.
Questions were asked by my bosses and I responded with truthful answers and long-winded descriptions of the thought processes behind those actions. When they ran out of questions and thought they had clearly documented that I broke the company's rules about what I could tell clients about their tool's performance and that termination was justified, the lawyer introduced himself to me. I had had no idea who he was up to then, he was just a suit with a notepad who spent his time there taking notes.
He thanked me for my thoughtful replies and turned to my bosses and told them that they could not fire me since the client had specifically asked me to answer his question based on my own personal experiences and that when I answered I was careful to base my answer only on my own personal experience - for better or worse. Additionally, since they knew that the experiences that I used in answering the client's questions were true and not embellished (they both had direct knowledge of the problems I had encountered and later described), there were no grounds to terminate.
Up to that point I had no idea that they were trying to terminate me. Basically, the company policy was to parrot the marketing bullshit and lie to the client about tool performance characteristics under adverse conditions.
When the lawyer had delivered the bad news to them he stood up and extended his hand, thanked me for my time and told me to keep up the good work.
I was fortunate that I had been able to send resumes several weeks before while I was recuperating from job-related knee surgery. One of those resumes ended up giving my life back to me and allowing me to expand my career and eventually become a consultant to the industry. Though its been thirty years now I can still say - Fuck Scumbagger.
That same UP line goes east into Illinois. They aren't running 3-mile long trains out here at the edge of the Chicago metro. I wonder where they draw the line.
I actually thought that this article was going to be about the inability to hire train crews. The commuter rail in Chicago is run in partnership with the freight lines. The one I use is operated by UP. I've overheard that the reason they haven't added more trains is that they can't hire more train crews. On my line, there are 21 trains in and 21 out on weekdays - a fraction of the pre-pandemic service levels. They are getting to the point where many trains a so crowded that people have to stand in the aisles and really need to add more service.
I actually thought that this article was going to be about the inability to hire train crews. The commuter rail in Chicago is run in partnership with the freight lines. The one I use is operated by UP. I've overheard that the reason they haven't added more trains is that they can't hire more train crews. On my line, there are 21 trains in and 21 out on weekdays - a fraction of the pre-pandemic service levels. They are getting to the point where many trains a so crowded that people have to stand in the aisles and really need to add more service.
Part of the problem with train crews is the Department of Transportation's antiquated laws on cannabis. You can't hire anyone who's used it in the last 90 days, that's a pretty huge fraction of the country. Actually you can't even hire them with the understanding that they need to stop immediately and be clean in 90 days, they have to have been clean for 90 days before applying on the DOT form or their application will bounce immediately.
Instead of reforming that law, or telling railroads to deal with it and pay more/reduce capacity, they're just gonna bend the safety laws instead.
Same problem applies to government and clearance jobs. FBI has said they can't find anyone to hire because everyone smokes pot now and that it's a problem for their hiring pipeline.
Instead of reforming that law, or telling railroads to deal with it and pay more/reduce capacity, they're just gonna bend the safety laws instead.
Same problem applies to government and clearance jobs. FBI has said they can't find anyone to hire because everyone smokes pot now and that it's a problem for their hiring pipeline.
As much as I'd like to agree, no. It's rapidly declining quality of life. Class 1s and especially BNSF is notorious for hiring, training, and then laying people off for what can be years, or training them in desirable locales, and then offering them work in shitholes. Beyond that the union negotiations are at a standstill, BNSF hasn't offered meaningful pay increases for years, the contraction of the labor pools means more work and less time off. Precision rail has made every craft increasingly uncomfortable, from the Surface Transportation Board hearing, the deposition given by every union sure makes it sound like every branch of every railroad is running a skeleton crew. Word of mouth goes a long way, and back in the day you had to know somebody to get an in on the railroad. They can't even get full training classes these days they've sullied their reputation so badly.
But most people will take the $100k plus over weed. And even once you're hired, you don't instantly get terminated for pissing hot or even coming in intoxicated. They'll send you to rehab and put you on probation, and even if one violates that probation one doesn't necessarily get fired. Plus you can afford cocaine on the railroad budget, or meth, or heroin. Anything but weed.
But most people will take the $100k plus over weed. And even once you're hired, you don't instantly get terminated for pissing hot or even coming in intoxicated. They'll send you to rehab and put you on probation, and even if one violates that probation one doesn't necessarily get fired. Plus you can afford cocaine on the railroad budget, or meth, or heroin. Anything but weed.
Are you sure a significant percentage of the target demographic they are wanting to hire regularly consumes cannabis and will gladly miss an opportunity for … cannabis ?
The question isn't "would you prefer a job or cannabis", it's "what fraction of the population is ineligible for consideration during the period when they're job-seeking". We have an extremely tight job-market right now and you're talking about adding a massive frictional force to employment in that job-market.
What is the average time a high-skilled professional (or even blue-collar) worker is unemployed between-jobs these days? Probably a lot less than 90 days, I'd think. And 2 years might as well be forever in this job market.
CDC numbers put the number of people who used cannabis at least once in 2019 at 18%, and it's probably only gotten higher over time. It's probably more like 25% nowadays - and sure that's "once a year" but the real number is likely also higher than a voluntary survey would find.
In market terms, reducing your supply by 25% or 30% is a lot and would significantly push your prices upwards. And if you don't let prices swing upwards enough, you'll get shortages.
On top of that it's just a generally undesirable job. Lots of time away from home, and extreme responsibility and stress, even in the best-case scenario, and they're making it even more unpleasant (the ever-popular "dead-sea effect") as they run out of people to do it. We're already seeing that showing up in similar jobs like nursing.
And then on top of that you've got the DOT requirements that exclude another big chunk of the population from consideration. So they're competing for an even smaller fraction of the job market, and they just aren't paying salaries to keep up with it all.
What is the average time a high-skilled professional (or even blue-collar) worker is unemployed between-jobs these days? Probably a lot less than 90 days, I'd think. And 2 years might as well be forever in this job market.
CDC numbers put the number of people who used cannabis at least once in 2019 at 18%, and it's probably only gotten higher over time. It's probably more like 25% nowadays - and sure that's "once a year" but the real number is likely also higher than a voluntary survey would find.
In market terms, reducing your supply by 25% or 30% is a lot and would significantly push your prices upwards. And if you don't let prices swing upwards enough, you'll get shortages.
On top of that it's just a generally undesirable job. Lots of time away from home, and extreme responsibility and stress, even in the best-case scenario, and they're making it even more unpleasant (the ever-popular "dead-sea effect") as they run out of people to do it. We're already seeing that showing up in similar jobs like nursing.
And then on top of that you've got the DOT requirements that exclude another big chunk of the population from consideration. So they're competing for an even smaller fraction of the job market, and they just aren't paying salaries to keep up with it all.
The role of cannabis in hazardous jobs is very interesting.
Here in Aotearoa I had a glimpse into that world as we had a referendum on legalisation (that we lost 52-48%, weep) that I was involved in.
Work testing is a big issue, with experienced workers (I personally know a ocean going boat captain in this situation) being treated dreadfully and made to urinate in a cup under close supervision.
In the meat processing industry it has become competitive. I heard of two meat processing companies close enough to be in competition for workers.
Works A used urine testing. Smoking a joint put you in danger of getting fired for a week, or three. Works B used a sweat test which means 24 hours after your joint you are clear.
Works B has a line of hard working butchers.
Works A has a chain of drunks
Here in Aotearoa I had a glimpse into that world as we had a referendum on legalisation (that we lost 52-48%, weep) that I was involved in.
Work testing is a big issue, with experienced workers (I personally know a ocean going boat captain in this situation) being treated dreadfully and made to urinate in a cup under close supervision.
In the meat processing industry it has become competitive. I heard of two meat processing companies close enough to be in competition for workers.
Works A used urine testing. Smoking a joint put you in danger of getting fired for a week, or three. Works B used a sweat test which means 24 hours after your joint you are clear.
Works B has a line of hard working butchers.
Works A has a chain of drunks
You seem to be assuming that the 25 or 30% of people who have used cannabis are all people that would otherwise be both interested and qualified as recruiting targets?
It's not clear to me that the requirement to be drug-free is excluding a lot of people who the railroads would otherwise want to hire.
It's not clear to me that the requirement to be drug-free is excluding a lot of people who the railroads would otherwise want to hire.
No, they seem to be saying that people eligible and interested in railroads probably smoke weed at the same rate as the general population. There’s nothing to indicate that people who would be open and qualified are far more abstinent than the population at large.
Freight train jobs involve long hours, bad hours (middle of the night, very early morning, etc), and a decent amount of physical labor. Very few people will take the job just due to lifestyle issues alone. Further limiting your job opening by mandating against cannabis certainly doesn't help the job appear more attractive. Railroad salaries are quite high given the necessary education, but the job conditions often are not worth the money to many people.
Who wants to take a job that has so much control of your life they are dictating what you do in your personal life just to interview there?
> For myself: I believe it is Wall Street greed and investor demands. 16,450-foot trains weighing more than 42 million pounds are gratifying someone with power. Someone who wants it all and more. I believe it is those few, who live nowhere near here, who own their own private islands and jets. This is far removed from laissez faire economics, or the neo liberal model, coming out of the 1980s.
This was an incredibly common economic outlook coming from the Midwest and South. It's both tickling and sad to hear. I do love the way this was written, and those PSR trains sound like a nightmare. When I worked the network engineering desk for a Class I railroad we took derails seriously to the extent of pulling anyone who made changes to infra to the dispatchers themselves. That wasn't that long ago either but it sounds like a lot has changed.
This was an incredibly common economic outlook coming from the Midwest and South. It's both tickling and sad to hear. I do love the way this was written, and those PSR trains sound like a nightmare. When I worked the network engineering desk for a Class I railroad we took derails seriously to the extent of pulling anyone who made changes to infra to the dispatchers themselves. That wasn't that long ago either but it sounds like a lot has changed.
Help me understand why Wall Street greed would prefer trains that derail to ones that don’t? (The machismo argument, sure, I get, though it’s unsubstantiated; one could just as easily try to pin it on urban environmentalists.)
Obviously, they don't prefer them in that sense.
But if the derailments are <X% of the trains, and the rest of the trains are more cost-effective enough to make up for those, especially if the costs of the derailment to the environment, communities, and employees and such are externalized away from the MBA making these decisions, then they may decide it is worthwhile.
This is one of the reasons so many people have varying levels of distaste aimed at "MBAs"... it's not that hard to train people to push numbers around in any number of industries. It's easy to equip somebody with an MBA capable of doing that. Heck, based on what I've seen of MBA training, it's trivial compared to an engineering degree, no offense particularly intended, but it really isn't that hard to tell whether this number is bigger than that number, even with some statistics thrown in. The problem is that there is no way to scale up understanding all the details that are not and perhaps even can not be in the numbers, and that's where the MBAs can go trampling over companies.
I'm sure the numbers on these jumbo trains look great, even accounting for the derailments. I'm sure of that because the fact they're running them is pretty much proof of that. If the numbers weren't good, they never would have become popular enough to be worth writing about in the first place. The question is, what about the things not in the numbers? That I can't speak to and must defer to people with experience in the industry. So must the MBAs, but they are trained, deliberately or otherwise, not to.
But if the derailments are <X% of the trains, and the rest of the trains are more cost-effective enough to make up for those, especially if the costs of the derailment to the environment, communities, and employees and such are externalized away from the MBA making these decisions, then they may decide it is worthwhile.
This is one of the reasons so many people have varying levels of distaste aimed at "MBAs"... it's not that hard to train people to push numbers around in any number of industries. It's easy to equip somebody with an MBA capable of doing that. Heck, based on what I've seen of MBA training, it's trivial compared to an engineering degree, no offense particularly intended, but it really isn't that hard to tell whether this number is bigger than that number, even with some statistics thrown in. The problem is that there is no way to scale up understanding all the details that are not and perhaps even can not be in the numbers, and that's where the MBAs can go trampling over companies.
I'm sure the numbers on these jumbo trains look great, even accounting for the derailments. I'm sure of that because the fact they're running them is pretty much proof of that. If the numbers weren't good, they never would have become popular enough to be worth writing about in the first place. The question is, what about the things not in the numbers? That I can't speak to and must defer to people with experience in the industry. So must the MBAs, but they are trained, deliberately or otherwise, not to.
I studied both engineering and management as part of the same degree. I can tell you everything the techies think about MBAs is correct. (The undergrad management degree overlapped with the MBA quite a bit, esp as the MBA was only one year).
Somehow if you take two thirds of an engineering degree and two thirds of an econ/mgt degree, two thirds of the work is the engineering degree.
Most of the reading in management is discovery channel style: lots of interesting things, there's no doubting that, but not real skills. They raise simple ideas to a level of respect that is not warranted by the content. Eg Porter's Five Forces can only really be a superficial checklist for strategy, it doesn't actually tell you anything about what matters in some industry, and you might come across some business where those five items are not so clear cut. Same with SWOT analysis and various other acronyms, they are simply trivial things that cannot stand next to the content of a technical degree.
There's also an inherent problem with MBA training: it assumes that there's a general training that is useful to every business. If you're going to apply the material, every grad will end up putting a round peg in a square hole. Fortunately there's not really anything to apply, you get the cool jobs because you're showing that you're smart and ambitious, not because you are qualified technically to do it.
Engineering on the other hand is quite hard to BS. We built a crappy radio in the first term, but it was a radio and it played the radio when you turned it on. You had to understand how radio spectrum worked and how to solder the little RLC components together to make it work.
Somehow if you take two thirds of an engineering degree and two thirds of an econ/mgt degree, two thirds of the work is the engineering degree.
Most of the reading in management is discovery channel style: lots of interesting things, there's no doubting that, but not real skills. They raise simple ideas to a level of respect that is not warranted by the content. Eg Porter's Five Forces can only really be a superficial checklist for strategy, it doesn't actually tell you anything about what matters in some industry, and you might come across some business where those five items are not so clear cut. Same with SWOT analysis and various other acronyms, they are simply trivial things that cannot stand next to the content of a technical degree.
There's also an inherent problem with MBA training: it assumes that there's a general training that is useful to every business. If you're going to apply the material, every grad will end up putting a round peg in a square hole. Fortunately there's not really anything to apply, you get the cool jobs because you're showing that you're smart and ambitious, not because you are qualified technically to do it.
Engineering on the other hand is quite hard to BS. We built a crappy radio in the first term, but it was a radio and it played the radio when you turned it on. You had to understand how radio spectrum worked and how to solder the little RLC components together to make it work.
I have an MBA and a computer engineering degree, both from Vanderbilt University. I had never thought to compare the difficulty of achieving either for some reason.
Looking at both......the MBA is indeed trivially easy compared to my engineering degree. By an order of magnitude. Thanks for opening my eyes to that.
Looking at both......the MBA is indeed trivially easy compared to my engineering degree. By an order of magnitude. Thanks for opening my eyes to that.
> This is one of the reasons so many people have varying levels of distaste aimed at "MBAs"
And the other is that a lot of the decisions that bring up anti-MBA shitstorms and flamewars make it more than obvious that ethics were not much of a part of the MBA program the offenders attended.
The most obvious example of ethics getting railroaded was Boeing, and look where it got them to.
And the other is that a lot of the decisions that bring up anti-MBA shitstorms and flamewars make it more than obvious that ethics were not much of a part of the MBA program the offenders attended.
The most obvious example of ethics getting railroaded was Boeing, and look where it got them to.
Liability is the other side of the ethics coin. Professional Engineers have liability and carry insurance as a result. MBAs? Not so much.
Look at the Boeing MCAS and VW emissions scandals. Individual engineers and test pilots were named and faced repercussions. The MBAs that sustained the environment where this poor decision making happened? Aside from the very senior executives, we have no clue who they are. They were able to stay in role or slink off to another opportunity. They might not even think they had any culpability.
Look at the Boeing MCAS and VW emissions scandals. Individual engineers and test pilots were named and faced repercussions. The MBAs that sustained the environment where this poor decision making happened? Aside from the very senior executives, we have no clue who they are. They were able to stay in role or slink off to another opportunity. They might not even think they had any culpability.
And the fact that nearly every company that has ever been lauded by the MBA industrial complex has collapsed (or was seriously damaged, or caused serious damage to society) as a direct result of the very same management practices and fads that the MBA industrial complex spent years or decades trying to cram down the throats of the rest of the country.
* Enron
* General Electric and the lord and savior of MBAs, Jack Welch
* Valeant Pharmaceuticals
* Sears
* IBM
* McDonnell-Douglas (and later Boeing)
* Intel
* Stock buybacks in the airline and retail industries
* Enron
* General Electric and the lord and savior of MBAs, Jack Welch
* Valeant Pharmaceuticals
* Sears
* IBM
* McDonnell-Douglas (and later Boeing)
* Intel
* Stock buybacks in the airline and retail industries
Or how many companies got broken up into small, stock-sized chunks to be profitably sold... and then once covid and the delivery chain issues hit, they were too small to survive on their own without government assistance.
I'm curious what changed recently to make this worse. I appreciated the article, an insider's ideas on what is going wrong (and somewhat nuanced), but what change is causing this newer race-to-the-bottom? Labor shortages? Fuel costs?
To be fair, there was probably a fair bit to cut or optimise in the very beginning of it all; but Jack Welch, the prototypical MBA CEO, started being CEO of GE in 1981.
41 years later, we are probably now cutting bone instead of fat.
41 years later, we are probably now cutting bone instead of fat.
Presumably the same forces that cause the rate of profit to decline everywhere. It's not anything new, it's just the latest step along the cut-costs-at-all-costs staircase.
> f the derailments are <X% of the trains, and the rest of the trains are more cost-effective enough to make up for those
You managed to figure it out, so why blame unknown, unseen, unnamed "MBAs" when virtually anyone of modest competency can realize that achieving 100% perfection is not cost-effective? And certainly not isolated to rail transportation. Do FAANG (or any software companies) produce 100% bug-free software? Do stores attempt to achieve 100% theft reduction? Virtually everyone knows that going from 98% success to 99% is very expensive, to 99.9% even more so, and 99.99% ridiculously so. 3, 4, 5, 6-sigma, and all that. If lives are at risk in these derailments, that's an issue. But these are freight trains.
You managed to figure it out, so why blame unknown, unseen, unnamed "MBAs" when virtually anyone of modest competency can realize that achieving 100% perfection is not cost-effective? And certainly not isolated to rail transportation. Do FAANG (or any software companies) produce 100% bug-free software? Do stores attempt to achieve 100% theft reduction? Virtually everyone knows that going from 98% success to 99% is very expensive, to 99.9% even more so, and 99.99% ridiculously so. 3, 4, 5, 6-sigma, and all that. If lives are at risk in these derailments, that's an issue. But these are freight trains.
I can tell you as someone with an MBA, we are not taught to think about workers, or safety, or anything except the bottom line. We are taught to stretch everything to the absolute breaking point, supposedly within the law, all in the name of shareholder profits. Even our management classes were under the moniker "human capital." We were never told to look at employees as anything beyond tools to be used to their maximum potential. We were taught that they were a cost to be minimized as much as possible.
This is not an accurate description of any recent MBA curriculum. To learn optimization, yes. Taught to treat workers as "tools", to ignore safety, to skip ethical guidelines in pursuit of profits? Not true. And anyway, so what? Don't you have independent agency? If you disagree with a professor, raise your hand and challenge him or her.
I got my MBA in '08 so I'm sure some has changed since then. We had an ethics class which focused solely on ethical financial reporting (ala Enron). But for sure we were taught to look at the majority of workers as one might look at machines in a factory.
I think that’s the point of the article. If you just look at the numbers like an MBA would then maybe it makes sense. But all of the negative externalities are being bore by the local communities where the derailments are happening, and those don’t show up in the balance sheets. So if they’re not in the balance sheets then why would someone in the corporate big city office care about it at all? That is now totally someone else’s problem. The numbers still look great.
“Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders.”
Are you claiming any other company does things differently? Even the greenest of companies have externalities that end up as someone else's problem. Wind farms kill tons of birds, electric cars require lithium mines, etc etc. Was it MBAs who failed to deliver clean water in Flint? I'm not defending destroying the planet or ignoring health and safety concerns -- I'm pointing out that everybody, from financiers to yes, engineers, tends to dismiss the negatives in whatever industry they derive a living from.
The article wasn't taking issue with the conceptual idea of derailments— people operate freight trains; they carry huge loads of toxic chemicals through populated areas; the environment can be impacted.
However, the author didn't definitely show that insanely long trains increase these dangers. They seemed frustrated that driving these trains sucks and talked about how frequently derailments occur and seems to believe the two things are related. The NHSTA numbers seem to indicate the trend for derailments is going down? Perhaps as train size increases, the number of trains decrease and the risk to the individual conductor goes up? Don't know enough about the subject matter to knowledgeably infer an answer, so I won't.
However, the author didn't definitely show that insanely long trains increase these dangers. They seemed frustrated that driving these trains sucks and talked about how frequently derailments occur and seems to believe the two things are related. The NHSTA numbers seem to indicate the trend for derailments is going down? Perhaps as train size increases, the number of trains decrease and the risk to the individual conductor goes up? Don't know enough about the subject matter to knowledgeably infer an answer, so I won't.
Read it again more carefully. They were suggesting, perhaps not directly enough for some, that these long trains are too long, and increase derailments. Because:
- they are harder to start and stop, because size. One mistake.. Shorter trains are easier to control, physically
- Crews are exhausted by these trains because they take too long in infrastructure not built for them (1940s yards), and adding to waiting time, making it much slower to add / move carriages / trucks around, and other logistically disproportional wastes of time
- The trains are too long for communication purposes too. radios don't have the distance. Safety and important messages get missed
...among other things.
- they are harder to start and stop, because size. One mistake.. Shorter trains are easier to control, physically
- Crews are exhausted by these trains because they take too long in infrastructure not built for them (1940s yards), and adding to waiting time, making it much slower to add / move carriages / trucks around, and other logistically disproportional wastes of time
- The trains are too long for communication purposes too. radios don't have the distance. Safety and important messages get missed
...among other things.
[deleted]
They don't prefer trains that derail. The just hate the measures which prevent the derailment. I assume the reasons are many, but here's some reasonable guesses, based on things I've heard in similar scenarios:
* The people that live along the tracks should be grateful that the trains are crashing and spilling stuff on their land because they "create jobs" (hundreds of miles away not affecting anyone associated with the normal land use).
* The religion of "regulation is always bad". Usually associated with blame that the existing regulations are really the problem - the increase in accidents after loosening the regs is just coincidence.
* The cost of derailments is less than the extra profit of running unsafely. Anyone complaining about their dead overworked family members can be pointed at a different exhuasted worker making a mistake, so it's not like they have any culpability.
* Maintenance costs too much and would hurt our bottom line! (also look over here instead: record profits!)
* The people that live along the tracks should be grateful that the trains are crashing and spilling stuff on their land because they "create jobs" (hundreds of miles away not affecting anyone associated with the normal land use).
* The religion of "regulation is always bad". Usually associated with blame that the existing regulations are really the problem - the increase in accidents after loosening the regs is just coincidence.
* The cost of derailments is less than the extra profit of running unsafely. Anyone complaining about their dead overworked family members can be pointed at a different exhuasted worker making a mistake, so it's not like they have any culpability.
* Maintenance costs too much and would hurt our bottom line! (also look over here instead: record profits!)
Though uncharitable, these pretty plainly fit the pattern we've seen over an over again for this sort of crisis, which makes it likely that one or most of those points is in play.
Which makes it particularly strange that the author asserts that they are "far removed from laissez faire economics, or the neo liberal model, coming out of the 1980s", since every one of these is a natural consequence of the incentive structure created by that economic model. (Unless I'm misunderstanding and the author is using "far removed" in a sense approximating "left to fester", but laissez faire incentivized those things even when fresh)
Which makes it particularly strange that the author asserts that they are "far removed from laissez faire economics, or the neo liberal model, coming out of the 1980s", since every one of these is a natural consequence of the incentive structure created by that economic model. (Unless I'm misunderstanding and the author is using "far removed" in a sense approximating "left to fester", but laissez faire incentivized those things even when fresh)
The author appears to be claiming that they're running gigantic trains because the investors think owning a gigantic train makes them manlier, even though the derailment makes them less profitable.
I think some businesses out there do a lot of things because it personally entertains the men who own them, but not sure about freight trains.
I think some businesses out there do a lot of things because it personally entertains the men who own them, but not sure about freight trains.
> Help me understand why Wall Street greed would prefer trains that derail to ones that don’t?
I don't know if it is true that they _prefer_ trains that derail vs ones that do not. I can try to understand their _incentives_ though.
I would assume that they are incentivized to make money _this quarter_ or _this year_. I would also assume that they aren't really _caring_ about consequences that are not _fiscal_.
Given these two incentives, if someone asked me "Should we ship this train that might derail?" I wouldn't say "no". I would ask "what are the fiscal consequences if it does?" and "How much does it cost to not?"
Famous Fight Club quote about recalls and such. Same thing with companies breaking the rules in exchange for some sort of fine. It's not that they _want to break the rules_ it's that it's they are _incentivized_ to make the choice that _increases their odds of fiscal growth_.
I don't know if it is true that they _prefer_ trains that derail vs ones that do not. I can try to understand their _incentives_ though.
I would assume that they are incentivized to make money _this quarter_ or _this year_. I would also assume that they aren't really _caring_ about consequences that are not _fiscal_.
Given these two incentives, if someone asked me "Should we ship this train that might derail?" I wouldn't say "no". I would ask "what are the fiscal consequences if it does?" and "How much does it cost to not?"
Famous Fight Club quote about recalls and such. Same thing with companies breaking the rules in exchange for some sort of fine. It's not that they _want to break the rules_ it's that it's they are _incentivized_ to make the choice that _increases their odds of fiscal growth_.
Well, part of what the article alludes to is an erosion of decency and safety culture. I don't remember the specific rules, but I do remember that trains had to be cautious making a ton of noise in cities, so they'd have entire areas where they can't use their horn, or where they can only use their horn, they have automated speed and brake checks, they have limits on the length of trains for certain tracks, etc...
When he's saying he's backing a 3-mile train into a depot, that's nothing to shake a stick at. That means nearby residents have to endure rail noise for the entire time the train overshoots the entrance and while it backs in, it means signals within a given radius must be down, even though a train may not be inbound, it means that the heavier a train gets the more unstable it's load can become on certain track and when it derails can cause catastrophic devestation to the environment (he mentioned carrying hazmat).
These all used to be pretty blueprint safety evaluations from what I knew. If things have changed then our perspective or priorities have changed, and I think that's what the author is getting at.
When he's saying he's backing a 3-mile train into a depot, that's nothing to shake a stick at. That means nearby residents have to endure rail noise for the entire time the train overshoots the entrance and while it backs in, it means signals within a given radius must be down, even though a train may not be inbound, it means that the heavier a train gets the more unstable it's load can become on certain track and when it derails can cause catastrophic devestation to the environment (he mentioned carrying hazmat).
These all used to be pretty blueprint safety evaluations from what I knew. If things have changed then our perspective or priorities have changed, and I think that's what the author is getting at.
Yep, in college I was taking the train home, and an earlier train had a passenger who had a heart attack, but the ambulance couldn't get to the train because all the crossings were blocked and there were cars everywhere that couldn't move out of the way.
Took about 45 minutes for the ambulance to get the lady off the train and the hospital was literally a 5 minute drive away. They just couldn't get to her.
Took about 45 minutes for the ambulance to get the lady off the train and the hospital was literally a 5 minute drive away. They just couldn't get to her.
Strange that protocol wasn't to move the train to somewhere an ambulance could reach
There are two main source of profit in the modern world. The first is exclusivity of market opportunity, through monopoly (including those "partial" monopolies provided by network effects), copyright, patent, regulatory capture, etc. The second place that profit comes from is in taking on liabilities that either you will not be required to pay, or not be able to pay. Uninsured borrowing doesn't really evoke the kind of evil that is really at play here, but it's an appropriate term.
More subtle is when the people making decisions (ie in the c-suite, board) have payoff curves that are substantially different from the company's payoff curve. Risking train derailment strikes me as being in this category. These schemes can be deeply convoluted. The author implies that there is substantial, uninsurable risk to cities that is implicitly taken on by any freight carrier. Holding everything else equal, increasing revenue while increasing the potential damage to a city is a potential source of profit.
More subtle is when the people making decisions (ie in the c-suite, board) have payoff curves that are substantially different from the company's payoff curve. Risking train derailment strikes me as being in this category. These schemes can be deeply convoluted. The author implies that there is substantial, uninsurable risk to cities that is implicitly taken on by any freight carrier. Holding everything else equal, increasing revenue while increasing the potential damage to a city is a potential source of profit.
You’re talking about economic profit, not accounting profits. Accounting profits just take the use of capital that can be employed at normal rates of return.
Presumably because cost of derailments is less than amount of profits that would not be made if everything wasn't pushed to its breaking point.
I think the point of the article is that given the hazardous nature of much of the cargo being transported, there's no room for such gambling here, and yet it's being done routinely.
I think the point of the article is that given the hazardous nature of much of the cargo being transported, there's no room for such gambling here, and yet it's being done routinely.
Market forces can, temporarily (but temporary can be any length of time that isn't forever), lead to impossible to sustain behaviors.
Here is a just so story:
Lets say you are CEO of a train company. You need $500M in income each quarter to pay salaries and stay solvent. You are barely breaking even, and if you have to borrow money it will be at terrible terms that you realistically can't afford to pay back. Your competitor starts running trains that are 3 times longer, and therefore can undercut you on price. If you don't lower your prices you will get almost no business and you will have to lay off workers or take a loan you can't pay back to meet payroll. If you lower prices you will lose money on every shipment and will have to take a loan. You decide to just start running the longer trains as well. You may have a suspicion that this is unsafe and that long term the costs of increased insurance and repairs to tracks and lawsuits to dead workers will cost far more than what you save running longer trains, but also you aren't sure of that. It will take years to know for sure, and you don't have the capital stay in business long enough to bet that your competitor will go bankrupt.
Here is a just so story:
Lets say you are CEO of a train company. You need $500M in income each quarter to pay salaries and stay solvent. You are barely breaking even, and if you have to borrow money it will be at terrible terms that you realistically can't afford to pay back. Your competitor starts running trains that are 3 times longer, and therefore can undercut you on price. If you don't lower your prices you will get almost no business and you will have to lay off workers or take a loan you can't pay back to meet payroll. If you lower prices you will lose money on every shipment and will have to take a loan. You decide to just start running the longer trains as well. You may have a suspicion that this is unsafe and that long term the costs of increased insurance and repairs to tracks and lawsuits to dead workers will cost far more than what you save running longer trains, but also you aren't sure of that. It will take years to know for sure, and you don't have the capital stay in business long enough to bet that your competitor will go bankrupt.
It should be noted that the railroads have been profitable for a long time, many reporting record profits for 2021.
This scenario is plausible in isolation, but not really related to the rail industry in the US.
This scenario is plausible in isolation, but not really related to the rail industry in the US.
If I had a tail, I wouldn’t need a chair, as I could hang from the ceiling, saving my company money.
Great story, except everything you said is factually wrong. Railroads have monopolies in their corridors, are printing money, and are challenged only by trucking companies who are struggling to survive due to labor and fuel problems.
Great story, except everything you said is factually wrong. Railroads have monopolies in their corridors, are printing money, and are challenged only by trucking companies who are struggling to survive due to labor and fuel problems.
And if your grandmother had wheels she would be a bicycle.
It can't be factually wrong, it was explicitly made up (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story), I was just illustrating how market forces can lead to seemingly irrational decisions.
It can't be factually wrong, it was explicitly made up (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story), I was just illustrating how market forces can lead to seemingly irrational decisions.
Why do automotive industries sell cars that they know to be defective?
They calculated that the cost of lawsuits from people hurt by the car defects will be lower than the cost of fixing the defect itself.
Simply put: if they can externalize costs on society, they will.
They calculated that the cost of lawsuits from people hurt by the car defects will be lower than the cost of fixing the defect itself.
Simply put: if they can externalize costs on society, they will.
I suspect it’s related to a lack of immediate cost to the largest companies.
Derailments are still infrequent enough that the company can be insured against the losses, so if derailments happen, there’s effectively zero cost to the company.
That would change if this class of train made incidents so frequent that insurance companies were no longer willing to sell insurance for derailments incidents involving this type of train. At that point, they’d be phased out of the fleet (as they crashed out of service) and then individually written off as a tax-deductible loss.
Derailments are still infrequent enough that the company can be insured against the losses, so if derailments happen, there’s effectively zero cost to the company.
That would change if this class of train made incidents so frequent that insurance companies were no longer willing to sell insurance for derailments incidents involving this type of train. At that point, they’d be phased out of the fleet (as they crashed out of service) and then individually written off as a tax-deductible loss.
This is my guess too.
Bonuses are paid quarterly, insurance premiums are negotiated yearly. PHB gets their cheddar before the bill comes due.
The long term fix is to properly reconnect incentives, so that PHBs making risky decisions also carry that risk.
Bonuses are paid quarterly, insurance premiums are negotiated yearly. PHB gets their cheddar before the bill comes due.
The long term fix is to properly reconnect incentives, so that PHBs making risky decisions also carry that risk.
Because the feedback loops of Wall Street optimize short term gain over long term investment. They do so by actualizing risk.
A railroad engineer is going to value longevity/consistency, and lives to minimize (rather than capitalize) risk.
The two are not going to make good bed fellows.
A railroad engineer is going to value longevity/consistency, and lives to minimize (rather than capitalize) risk.
The two are not going to make good bed fellows.
I disagree. Long term investing is de rigeur on Wall Street - everyone from Warren Buffet to index fund investors are doing it.
Sure some people do trading, but a long term view is both the right one and the most profitable one.
Sure some people do trading, but a long term view is both the right one and the most profitable one.
> Long term investing is de rigeur on Wall Street
On what do you base that? My immediate reaction is that you are being naive.
On what do you base that? My immediate reaction is that you are being naive.
To my knowledge, there's plenty of funds who place investors money for the long-term into low to moderate risk assets. Pension funds, municipalities, businesses with cash surpluss or individual people who invest for their retirement aren't into the thrills of short-term speculation.
They don't prefer trains that derail, but (if the article is to be believed, which I can't say) they prefer to chip away at the safety margins (which cost money) until it's only the experience of the (train) engineer that keeps the train on the tracks. Of course, you could say that's always the case, but I can imagine that it gets harder and harder to do it the longer the train is.
> why Wall Street greed would prefer trains that derail to ones that don’t?
Because they can offload most of the costs of the derailments as externalities while pocketing the money from larger trains.
Because they can offload most of the costs of the derailments as externalities while pocketing the money from larger trains.
> they can offload most of the costs of the derailments as externalities while pocketing the money from larger trains
Are derailments cash-flow neutral? (Honest question. Could be, if the public foots clean-up and insurance the train and lost revenue.)
Are derailments cash-flow neutral? (Honest question. Could be, if the public foots clean-up and insurance the train and lost revenue.)
Even if not "cash-flow neutral", if any significant portion of the cost of a derailment is externalized, then carrier's appetite for derailment risk will be higher and there will be larger trains.
The solution here would seem to be penalizing derailments using a large fine that is proportional or progressive to weight or length.
The solution here would seem to be penalizing derailments using a large fine that is proportional or progressive to weight or length.
I'm not sure what portion of derailment costs are externalized. I've seen a few in town, none that involved hazmat spills thankfully, mostly coal trains. But the repair of the rail and track bed, hiring of services to lift the derailed cars back onto the track, repair of damaged cars, etc. is all going to be on the railroad. Loss or damage to the cargo would be on the owner of the cargo as in any shipping scenario, but they should be insured for that.
If there was damage to private property, a hazmat spill contaminating private land, or injury or loss of life, the railroad is going to get sued.
If there was damage to private property, a hazmat spill contaminating private land, or injury or loss of life, the railroad is going to get sued.
The major specific externality called out in the letter is engineer burnout. I would be surprised if other costs are not significantly externalized, but I don't have data to back this up.
Not all the externalities mentioned are specific to derailments, but also apply to the general difficulty of our infrastructure in supporting such long trains.
Not all the externalities mentioned are specific to derailments, but also apply to the general difficulty of our infrastructure in supporting such long trains.
Your reasons are unconvincing. A rail company that burns out its engineers now has to either deal with a low performing engineer or come up with the costs and delays of retraining another engineer.
And a derailment sounds like a massive cost to a rail company. You need to clear the tracks (which can't be used until you do), probably pay higher insurance costs for the material you are transporting that is lost, etc, etc
And a derailment sounds like a massive cost to a rail company. You need to clear the tracks (which can't be used until you do), probably pay higher insurance costs for the material you are transporting that is lost, etc, etc
I don't see this as a Wall Street problem though; they should be able to optimize for their incentives within the rules structure. It's the regulators fault for allowing trains to be this long.
Assigning fault (or blame) to only one party is most likely foolish and unwise. The world is not that simple. It is complex, as in a complex system -- not the same meaning as in "throw up our hands because it is too complex to handle!". Untangling the interrelated factors is complex. Making sense of a complex system honestly is key to finding workable and fair solutions
What's so complex about this situation? I see no problem with mandating a maximum train length.
Imagine that you were a regulator, such as a member of the National Transportation Safety Board [1]. Put yourself in that position. How would you go about deciding the appropriate regulation?
Of course that is not the only stakeholder in the situation. Now for each key stakeholder, including railroad companies, railroad employees, shipping companies, the purchasing public, and landowners near tracks, what would be your professional opinion on the correct outcome?
It is pretty clear that what you see depends on where you sit.
Now step back even further and imagine you are an omniscient being that can truly comprehend all of the above perspectives. How would you go about deciding the correct outcome? It will depend on your notion of good and fairness. I think for many definitions of good, you'll find that considerable analysis is involved.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Transportation_Safe...
Of course that is not the only stakeholder in the situation. Now for each key stakeholder, including railroad companies, railroad employees, shipping companies, the purchasing public, and landowners near tracks, what would be your professional opinion on the correct outcome?
It is pretty clear that what you see depends on where you sit.
Now step back even further and imagine you are an omniscient being that can truly comprehend all of the above perspectives. How would you go about deciding the correct outcome? It will depend on your notion of good and fairness. I think for many definitions of good, you'll find that considerable analysis is involved.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Transportation_Safe...
It feels like you're not commenting in good faith but I'll respond in good faith anyway. As a mechanical engineer, my professional opinion is that trains should not be derailing, period. The trains should be allowed to be as long as possible so that they can safely not derail, and perhaps also not dramatically interrupt traffic in towns. It's hardly a question of "should we ensure that trains do not derail": the answer is unambiguously yes, it is not acceptable for them to derail. I accept that asking "what is the appropriate maximum length for a train" might require some deeper thought, but the article is very clearly stating that the problem is that trains are too long and are derailing, not whatever vague "complexity" you keep going on about.
But it's a matter of probabilities. It's not like a train will derail if it's over some length, and won't derail if it's shorter. A 10-car train can derail, it's just less likely at least for causes that are related to train length.
There is no regulation that will prevent all derailments with 100% effectiveness.
There is no regulation that will prevent all derailments with 100% effectiveness.
The normal way engineering is done is to create a safety margin so that the probability of a serious problem under normal operation is vanishingly small. Airliners do not fall out of the sky on a regular basis in the United States for that reason. Serious problems have become rare through serious application of serious standards.
Engineering rail systems so that derailments do not happen at all is a reasonable shorthand for almost never. It is engineering malpractice to run things so close to the edge that fatalities or serious property damage are to be expected next month instead of sometime in the next few decades or so.
Engineering rail systems so that derailments do not happen at all is a reasonable shorthand for almost never. It is engineering malpractice to run things so close to the edge that fatalities or serious property damage are to be expected next month instead of sometime in the next few decades or so.
That's true, but there are also engineering principles at play unrelated to probability. If I squeeze a piece of hard spaghetti on it's ends, would it be easier to break a 20cm piece of spaghetti or a 1cm piece of spaghetti? 20cm, obviously, and that same principle applies with trains. Longer trains are harder to stop, harder to control, less robust to disturbances. Likewise, if I squeeze a piece of soft spaghetti on its ends, it's harder to predict how it will bend if it's really long than if it's really short. You won't see a 1cm piece of spaghetti contort itself into loops, but a 20cm piece certainly will.
The spaghetti metaphor tells part of the story, though I’ve never seen spaghetti somewhat coupled (constrained) to some kind of path (analogous to a track).
> Longer trains are harder to stop, harder to control, less robust to disturbances.
All other things equal, this seems plausible, but I’m no expert on trains. So if I studied it, I would likely agree in most cases.
However, I do wonder if longer trains, being more massive, do offer some benefits in some cases. Perhaps a disturbance affecting only one car would have less effect because the other cars have more inertia and resist change.
This of course relates the question of the design criteria. Clearly trains should be designed with a cost benefit analysis such that more common disturbances can be handled. What kinds of disturbances can and should be planned for?
> Longer trains are harder to stop, harder to control, less robust to disturbances.
All other things equal, this seems plausible, but I’m no expert on trains. So if I studied it, I would likely agree in most cases.
However, I do wonder if longer trains, being more massive, do offer some benefits in some cases. Perhaps a disturbance affecting only one car would have less effect because the other cars have more inertia and resist change.
This of course relates the question of the design criteria. Clearly trains should be designed with a cost benefit analysis such that more common disturbances can be handled. What kinds of disturbances can and should be planned for?
I respect the mechanical engineering point of view.
> As a mechanical engineer, my professional opinion is that trains should not be derailing, period.
I was also trained as an engineer. Part of that training is understanding probability and risk. There is going to be some risk of derailment. How do you go about deciding the acceptable risk of development? Have you done such a calculation before? What is it based on?
> As a mechanical engineer, my professional opinion is that trains should not be derailing, period.
I was also trained as an engineer. Part of that training is understanding probability and risk. There is going to be some risk of derailment. How do you go about deciding the acceptable risk of development? Have you done such a calculation before? What is it based on?
You seem to have one view about what the article is about. It appears to me that your comments are anchored in that one point of view. It also appears that you dismiss other’s comments that don’t align with your view, sometimes even thinking they are in bad faith.
> not whatever vague "complexity" you keep going on about
Hopefully you can see (in retrospect, at least) that this language is not going to build goodwill or help understanding.
Some people dismiss complexity theory without giving it a chance.
Hopefully you can see (in retrospect, at least) that this language is not going to build goodwill or help understanding.
Some people dismiss complexity theory without giving it a chance.
Why do you think I’m not commenting in good faith? And what do you exactly mean by that?
Are you asking what is 'so complex' about public policy, safety, and economics?
Even if this is only about maximum train length, which it isn't, the underlying dynamics, as they are perceived by and affect all the stakeholders, are complex.
This is what I mean by complex systems: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system
Is this what you mean?
Even if this is only about maximum train length, which it isn't, the underlying dynamics, as they are perceived by and affect all the stakeholders, are complex.
This is what I mean by complex systems: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system
Is this what you mean?
It's both a Wall Street problem and incompetent/corrupt government problem.
Why is it a Wall Street problem?
Because you cant do unethical and societally harmful things and say it’s not your fault cause it’s not illegal.
I mean, sure you can legally, but you’re still a harmful entity with a problem.
I mean, sure you can legally, but you’re still a harmful entity with a problem.
Do you want wishful thinking or solutions? Wall St has no conscience, it never has and it never will. Let's move past that and build a structure of laws that enforces the ethics we care about.
Sure, of course we need the laws and enforcement agencies.
I can't see what's wrong with calling out people for unethical, shitty and harmful behaviour however.
I can't see what's wrong with calling out people for unethical, shitty and harmful behaviour however.
Derailments are a red herring here. The real issue being raised by the writer is: shifts on these "monster" trains are too long and employees are burning out.
It may not be obvious that the size of the trains are causing derailments, or at least not to the "Wall Street People". Your comment assumes that everyone has perfect information and asses the available information in an unbiased purely rational way, but in reality that's often not the case.
(No opinion if this actually is the cause, or what the dynamics are here; I don't know anything about trains or the businesses surrounding them.)
(No opinion if this actually is the cause, or what the dynamics are here; I don't know anything about trains or the businesses surrounding them.)
[deleted]
If you carry an egg carton a day from the producer to the market to make 50% profit, you stand to gain much more in aggregate by increasing your throughput to two egg cartons a day, even if this introduces a 10% risk of dropping them both, losing both the profit and investment.
If there is some kind of a moral incentive not to drop eggs, it is not reflected in the profit incentive.
If there is some kind of a moral incentive not to drop eggs, it is not reflected in the profit incentive.
Its just "outsiders evil insiders good" where local politics can finger point to external politics as the source of all their woes.
Why are these monster trains preferable at all? They apparently need distributed locomotives, which means that the number of cars per locomotive isn’t actually substantially larger than a group of smaller trains. So they save a couple engineers per monster train at the cost of lower utilization (due to inefficiencies of loading and unloading)? What’s the corresponding benefit?
[deleted]
Just guessing, but maybe it allows more throughput in single track territory (that often used to be double track but... efficiency).
You might as well ask why Wall Street doesn't prefer trains with 3 cars and 1 loc. Much safer - but not optimising their profits. A guy who hitches a 4th car beats everyone.
So trains are optimised for profit. Now if your trains never derail, that means you may still have safety margin. There may be profit for the taking!!!
So keep optimising till it goes wrong. Then, figure out the cost of "going wrong". Figure that into your margins. If you get 99% delivery with 110% profit, does that beat 100% delivery for 100% profit?
TL;DR: that's how free markets work in capitalism. They optimise for profit.
So trains are optimised for profit. Now if your trains never derail, that means you may still have safety margin. There may be profit for the taking!!!
So keep optimising till it goes wrong. Then, figure out the cost of "going wrong". Figure that into your margins. If you get 99% delivery with 110% profit, does that beat 100% delivery for 100% profit?
TL;DR: that's how free markets work in capitalism. They optimise for profit.
Railroads are an old business where the safety and other operational considerations are well known.
The equation here is more like “I can increase margins 3% this quarter to get my bonus, but increase the risk of an incident that may harm or result in the death of an employee or disaster affecting the public by 15%”
The long game is that the railroad will lose money when they create a 9-figure incident. The short game is the management makes their money.
The equation here is more like “I can increase margins 3% this quarter to get my bonus, but increase the risk of an incident that may harm or result in the death of an employee or disaster affecting the public by 15%”
The long game is that the railroad will lose money when they create a 9-figure incident. The short game is the management makes their money.
It's more than just profit. We need to move goods around. We use airplanes, trains, and trucks. All of those vehicles have imperfect safety. We accept that because we need a functioning economy.
It’s puzzling to me why you would defend these companies.
I suppose you don’t live near one of these lines or have to worry about some terrible accident or even a town-destroying explosion. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disas...)
My uncle worked for one of the large railroads for 32 years. He retired last year, along with every eligible employee in his division. The workplace injury rates in that division had climbed to the point that it didn’t make sense to do the job and risk death or serious injury.
I suppose you don’t live near one of these lines or have to worry about some terrible accident or even a town-destroying explosion. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disas...)
My uncle worked for one of the large railroads for 32 years. He retired last year, along with every eligible employee in his division. The workplace injury rates in that division had climbed to the point that it didn’t make sense to do the job and risk death or serious injury.
> The long game is that the railroad will lose money when they create a 9-figure incident. The short game is the management makes their money.
Even if they do (and this is a BIG if when we see how many companies get bailed out of their bad decisions) they still have caused a 9 figure incident. Which could be a chemical spill or any number of other things that could cause serious environmental damage to the local communities. A fine that results in the destruction of the company is great and all, but they've still made the planet markedly worse through their negligence.
Even if they do (and this is a BIG if when we see how many companies get bailed out of their bad decisions) they still have caused a 9 figure incident. Which could be a chemical spill or any number of other things that could cause serious environmental damage to the local communities. A fine that results in the destruction of the company is great and all, but they've still made the planet markedly worse through their negligence.
[deleted]
This part stood out to me also, but mostly for the fact that it seemed poorly substantiated.
The fact of the matter is BNSF, CSX, Norfolk Southern, and Union Pacific are majority owned by institutional investors (Vanguard, Blackrock, State Street, Capital World Investors, etc.) Those institutions are managing these investments on behalf of large capital pools–insurance company float, pension funds, 401ks, etc. Who does all that capital belong to (or who are its beneficiaries)? Regular Americans. Very likely included? The author himself!
While I have no particular interest or knowledge of the rail industry, I am moved by the issues highlighted by the author. However, I think his call to conspiratorial instincts ("a few rich people are working us to death to fund their nth private island") is bad, dangerous logic.
The fact of the matter is BNSF, CSX, Norfolk Southern, and Union Pacific are majority owned by institutional investors (Vanguard, Blackrock, State Street, Capital World Investors, etc.) Those institutions are managing these investments on behalf of large capital pools–insurance company float, pension funds, 401ks, etc. Who does all that capital belong to (or who are its beneficiaries)? Regular Americans. Very likely included? The author himself!
While I have no particular interest or knowledge of the rail industry, I am moved by the issues highlighted by the author. However, I think his call to conspiratorial instincts ("a few rich people are working us to death to fund their nth private island") is bad, dangerous logic.
It's even worse than that - a single person working you to death for his private island could be sated, could have a change of heart, could reduce the workload.
Everything is managed by managers for the same managers - there's literally nobody in charge; the bureaucracy perpetuates the bureaucracy for the sake of the bureaucracy.
http://johncbogle.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/n...
Everything is managed by managers for the same managers - there's literally nobody in charge; the bureaucracy perpetuates the bureaucracy for the sake of the bureaucracy.
http://johncbogle.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/n...
Corporations are a form of memeplex, a living entity that sustains itself with a set of rules and incentives.
If you consider a beehive or an ant colony to be a single living entity, then a corporation probably is too, it's a single larger entity with its own homeostasis and agency, even if it incorporates individual organic actors into its being.
"profit-seeking" is the goal we have chosen to encode most of them with in their bylaws. Non-profits (in principle) have different pro-social goals (I'm ignoring the Komen Foundation-type "mimics"" here). And that's what they do.
If you consider a beehive or an ant colony to be a single living entity, then a corporation probably is too, it's a single larger entity with its own homeostasis and agency, even if it incorporates individual organic actors into its being.
"profit-seeking" is the goal we have chosen to encode most of them with in their bylaws. Non-profits (in principle) have different pro-social goals (I'm ignoring the Komen Foundation-type "mimics"" here). And that's what they do.
> Those institutions are managing these investments on behalf of large capital pools–insurance company float, pension funds, 401ks, etc. Who does all that capital belong to (or who are its beneficiaries)? Regular Americans. Very likely included? The author himself!
The Federal Reserve survey of consumer finances shows that the majority of equity is held by a small percent of people.
Various shifts by corporations and government over the years have happened to raise the social security age, disrupt job security, unions and pensions, and shift middle class retirement funds into the stock market. None of this have had much impact other than that ownership of equity on the minority side of the equation may now be more widely distributed.
The Federal Reserve survey of consumer finances shows that the majority of equity is held by a small percent of people.
Various shifts by corporations and government over the years have happened to raise the social security age, disrupt job security, unions and pensions, and shift middle class retirement funds into the stock market. None of this have had much impact other than that ownership of equity on the minority side of the equation may now be more widely distributed.
> and those PSR trains sound like a nightmare.
They are especially a nightmare when you get stuck at a crossing with no other way around them (no bridges). I sat at a crossing for over 15 minutes waiting for a extremely long train to pass.
It gets even worse when you live near a place that has the train come to a compelete stop so that cars can be unhitched, taken off to a side rail, then have the engine reverse to connect back to the rest of the cars, for it to finally slowly pull away. The small town I lived it was forced to build a second fire department as the only one would get stuck behind trains delaying help. They evenutally built a new access road with a bridge over the tracks.
They are especially a nightmare when you get stuck at a crossing with no other way around them (no bridges). I sat at a crossing for over 15 minutes waiting for a extremely long train to pass.
It gets even worse when you live near a place that has the train come to a compelete stop so that cars can be unhitched, taken off to a side rail, then have the engine reverse to connect back to the rest of the cars, for it to finally slowly pull away. The small town I lived it was forced to build a second fire department as the only one would get stuck behind trains delaying help. They evenutally built a new access road with a bridge over the tracks.
There's an area in SE Portland where trains regularly take an hour or more to pass. Many of the streets that get blocked are one-way or really have no alternate once you are on them. It takes the cooperation and coordination of a lots of drivers and vehicles to prevent the effective shutdown of 40+ square blocks when these crossings happen a few times a day.
After 15mins, I turn the car around and go back home for an hour. I'm not sitting in my car stationary for an hour for the train to pass. Trains aren't allowed to stop during commute hours. They have to do that in certain windows.
Didn't think I'd see another PoCo resident on HN!
Willing to guess this happens across pretty much every Smalltown, USA.
The train came to town, and all rejoiced! The trains continued to get bigger, but towns did not anticipate this. The mayor doesn't live on "that" side of the tracks, so doesn't ever think about it. People complaining about it are from "that" side of the tracks, so doesn't rate highly on the TODO.
The train came to town, and all rejoiced! The trains continued to get bigger, but towns did not anticipate this. The mayor doesn't live on "that" side of the tracks, so doesn't ever think about it. People complaining about it are from "that" side of the tracks, so doesn't rate highly on the TODO.
> pulling anyone who made changes to infra to the dispatchers themselves.
I’m not up on railway lingo, can you expand on this?
I’m not up on railway lingo, can you expand on this?
Yeah, tracks have little huts every so often next to the track. These huts provide an uplink and various routing equipment that connects to track side safety equipment eg: there's big microphone arrays that listen to the wheels and brakes for deformities, automated switches will generally link into these if there's a switch nearby. Any change could influence a derailment, for instance if the track didn't switch and the train was going too fast for it's new destination. Therefore, anyone with their name on a change within a radius of the crash site gets interviewed, the dispatcher is removed and interviewed immediately.
The government data I am able to find does not seem to support the idea that there is a massive (or any) increase in derailments. And this letter never provides any data supporting the premise either.
According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, there were 1,056 train derailments (both cargo and passenger) in the US in 2021. This was the lowest number in the dataset going back to 1975.
Ten years ago, it was 1,470 derailments. In the year 2000, it was over 2,000 derailments.
In reality, the data suggest we are on a strong downward trend in derailments per year.
Is this government data wrong? Or is this writer trying out a career in fiction?
Data: https://www.bts.gov/content/train-fatalities-injuries-and-ac...
According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, there were 1,056 train derailments (both cargo and passenger) in the US in 2021. This was the lowest number in the dataset going back to 1975.
Ten years ago, it was 1,470 derailments. In the year 2000, it was over 2,000 derailments.
In reality, the data suggest we are on a strong downward trend in derailments per year.
Is this government data wrong? Or is this writer trying out a career in fiction?
Data: https://www.bts.gov/content/train-fatalities-injuries-and-ac...
Isn’t there a third option that both your interpretation of the data and the letter are wrong? The letter specifically mentions the derailment of monster trains. These trains have more cargo and so one derailment can lead to a more severe delay in shipping times.
You can see the ratio here: https://www.bts.gov/content/us-vehicle-miles. Breaks down car miles vs train miles.
I hope the third option is a bit more of just trying to take the situation in. This is someone sharing their experience, the executives running the show have their perspective as well. I'm not sure why we have to jump so quickly to "I found data that refutes this, is this person lying or is the data wrong?". Just seems to leave out so much nuance. Feels like a very tech industry "see the data and make a decision". This situation is so human, it's about fear and whether those fears are being considered.
I hope the third option is a bit more of just trying to take the situation in. This is someone sharing their experience, the executives running the show have their perspective as well. I'm not sure why we have to jump so quickly to "I found data that refutes this, is this person lying or is the data wrong?". Just seems to leave out so much nuance. Feels like a very tech industry "see the data and make a decision". This situation is so human, it's about fear and whether those fears are being considered.
That data is great - thank you for posting. It looks like rail-car miles have held somewhat steady, down a little bit, except for 2020, which I assume was COVID related.
I am being a bit facetious with the fiction comment.
However, I do believe there are a lot of problems in the rail industry. With the introduction of "PSR" (precision-scheduled railroading), trains actually have no schedule, and only leave when they're full. This maximizes efficiency.
It's very hard on rail staff, because it means they, too have no schedule. They work a train in one direction, do a staff change, and then go to a hotel while waiting for a return trip. They get as little as 90-120 minutes of notice for the return trip. So it's a lot of time away from home, with very little ability to control one's schedule. I imagine that this source of frustration emerges in a lot of different places, and it's possible that this letter was one of them.
I am being a bit facetious with the fiction comment.
However, I do believe there are a lot of problems in the rail industry. With the introduction of "PSR" (precision-scheduled railroading), trains actually have no schedule, and only leave when they're full. This maximizes efficiency.
It's very hard on rail staff, because it means they, too have no schedule. They work a train in one direction, do a staff change, and then go to a hotel while waiting for a return trip. They get as little as 90-120 minutes of notice for the return trip. So it's a lot of time away from home, with very little ability to control one's schedule. I imagine that this source of frustration emerges in a lot of different places, and it's possible that this letter was one of them.
>It's very hard on rail staff, because it means they, too have no schedule. They work a train in one direction, do a staff change, and then go to a hotel while waiting for a return trip. They get as little as 90-120 minutes of notice for the return trip. So it's a lot of time away from home, with very little ability to control one's schedule.
This is a major frustration in a nutshell but you have to know that in addition to the short notice that they are about to get out for the return trip back home all the time they spend off duty in the hotel room counts (to the railroad) as time off, in other words it counts as if it totally belongs to them to do with as they please going about all their normal business. In reality they are in a hotel many times with limited meal options, with no way to visit family or to help out around the house, to conduct any of the other normal household business. Their time in the hotels is not their time at all to the point where the actual time they spend on a run (a round trip) can be multiple days and only a part of that time is compensated.
A recent text I had from my relative currently with a railroad gives the railroad's perspective quite clearly during a Zoom meeting - "Y'all hired out to work 24/7/365, we are going to make good employees out of you all."
I am part of a fourth generation railroad family. Three of the last four generations, beginning in 1942, have worked on the railroad. It skipped me because I went a different direction.
EDIT: I forgot to mention that the ultimate goal of the railroads is to decrease train crew size to 1. Each of these trains will be driven by a one-man train "crew". A couple decades ago normal crew size was three - engineer, brakeman, conductor. Brakeman positions were eliminated leaving the engineer and conductors rolling the trains. The railroads were supposed to be using PTC, positive train control a long time ago but were able to dodge the upgrades to track and infrastructure in the typical American corporate way by delaying using a standard set of excuses. PTC would bring about a single man crew by automating almost everything. That would mean huge loss of jobs and a huge investment in infrastructure upgrades since many thousands of miles of tracks have speed limits that are in place due to trackage that can't handle higher speeds safely. There's a lot going on here and it's always deeper than one single argument.
This is a major frustration in a nutshell but you have to know that in addition to the short notice that they are about to get out for the return trip back home all the time they spend off duty in the hotel room counts (to the railroad) as time off, in other words it counts as if it totally belongs to them to do with as they please going about all their normal business. In reality they are in a hotel many times with limited meal options, with no way to visit family or to help out around the house, to conduct any of the other normal household business. Their time in the hotels is not their time at all to the point where the actual time they spend on a run (a round trip) can be multiple days and only a part of that time is compensated.
A recent text I had from my relative currently with a railroad gives the railroad's perspective quite clearly during a Zoom meeting - "Y'all hired out to work 24/7/365, we are going to make good employees out of you all."
I am part of a fourth generation railroad family. Three of the last four generations, beginning in 1942, have worked on the railroad. It skipped me because I went a different direction.
EDIT: I forgot to mention that the ultimate goal of the railroads is to decrease train crew size to 1. Each of these trains will be driven by a one-man train "crew". A couple decades ago normal crew size was three - engineer, brakeman, conductor. Brakeman positions were eliminated leaving the engineer and conductors rolling the trains. The railroads were supposed to be using PTC, positive train control a long time ago but were able to dodge the upgrades to track and infrastructure in the typical American corporate way by delaying using a standard set of excuses. PTC would bring about a single man crew by automating almost everything. That would mean huge loss of jobs and a huge investment in infrastructure upgrades since many thousands of miles of tracks have speed limits that are in place due to trackage that can't handle higher speeds safely. There's a lot going on here and it's always deeper than one single argument.
I would presume the ultimate goal from the perspective of the railroads is totally autonomous trains with no human crew. There may be reason not apparent, but that seems like a much more practical goal than automating trucks and cars on roads. The track steers the train, the switches and signals are (almost) all interlocking, an autonomous train would never miss a speed change, a signal, or need to stop because the driver is out of hours.
> I'm not sure why we have to jump so quickly to "I found data that refutes this, is this person lying or is the data wrong?".
I don't think it's that people are jumping to it as much as people are trying to identify what's actually going on. The solution for "this problem is happening more often" is different than for "this problem appears to be happening more, but is actually happening less". Applying a process change for what was a perception problem might actually make things worse. It's important to identify the problem so the correct fix can be determined.
Even if this actually is a problem but the national data belies that, that could be useful in pointing towards the problem being more localized to Iowa, and differences in that area can be looked for.
I don't think it's that people are jumping to it as much as people are trying to identify what's actually going on. The solution for "this problem is happening more often" is different than for "this problem appears to be happening more, but is actually happening less". Applying a process change for what was a perception problem might actually make things worse. It's important to identify the problem so the correct fix can be determined.
Even if this actually is a problem but the national data belies that, that could be useful in pointing towards the problem being more localized to Iowa, and differences in that area can be looked for.
I think the other important piece of data you would need to find is average train length over that same period of time. Fewer derailments could have just as much or a larger impact if the train length is growing.
I did find a GAO study that said that trains increased in length by 25% since 2008.
But the number of derailments dropped by more than 25% during that time, so the probability of a given car being involved in a derailed train still decreased.
There's been other coverage of the ironically named "precision scheduling" in the rail industry causing a lot of labor problems, because it makes for nightmarishly unpredictable schedules for workers. They never know when a train is going to leave until it is full, so after working a shift, workers stay in a hotel waiting for a return trip that they won't know about until 90-120 minutes ahead of departure. I am guessing that the claims around increased derailment may actually be about frustration with the work environment.
But the number of derailments dropped by more than 25% during that time, so the probability of a given car being involved in a derailed train still decreased.
There's been other coverage of the ironically named "precision scheduling" in the rail industry causing a lot of labor problems, because it makes for nightmarishly unpredictable schedules for workers. They never know when a train is going to leave until it is full, so after working a shift, workers stay in a hotel waiting for a return trip that they won't know about until 90-120 minutes ahead of departure. I am guessing that the claims around increased derailment may actually be about frustration with the work environment.
Right, given same car count and derailment rate, 2x train length could appear as 1/2 the derailments.
Depends on if the probability of a derailment is K per train mile, or K per car mile. And I suspect that the answer is "some of both". When a car has a mechanical failure that causes a derailment, that kind of derailment is going to be proportional to the number of car miles. Some other causes (misaligned switches, say) will be proportional to the number of train miles.
The average length isn’t enough because the likelihood of derailment might be a function of train length. It’s possible shorter trains have gotten safer and monster trains have gotten more dangerous due to their increasing length.
> According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, there were 1,056 train derailments (both cargo and passenger) in the US in 2021
The key word here might be "US". The letter writer is specifically talking about Iowa; are state-by-state statistics available?
If you've never spent time in the Midwest, you probably have never seen a train that's a mile or longer. Endless cars of agricultural products, often high fructose corn syrup. I saw this often growing up in Iowa, never in California. In the Bay Area, freight sometimes moves along the same tracks as Caltrain at night, but the trains are tiny in comparison to those of Iowa.
For a while, I think trains in Iowa were limited by how long a train was allowed to block a roadway (IIRC 10 minutes). I think trains were sized so at least in theory they could comply with the law when at speed. The law might have changed since, and/or maybe there aren't as many at-grade crossings anymore. (A painful intersection in my home town recently got grade separation.)
The key word here might be "US". The letter writer is specifically talking about Iowa; are state-by-state statistics available?
If you've never spent time in the Midwest, you probably have never seen a train that's a mile or longer. Endless cars of agricultural products, often high fructose corn syrup. I saw this often growing up in Iowa, never in California. In the Bay Area, freight sometimes moves along the same tracks as Caltrain at night, but the trains are tiny in comparison to those of Iowa.
For a while, I think trains in Iowa were limited by how long a train was allowed to block a roadway (IIRC 10 minutes). I think trains were sized so at least in theory they could comply with the law when at speed. The law might have changed since, and/or maybe there aren't as many at-grade crossings anymore. (A painful intersection in my home town recently got grade separation.)
Other than a few years in L.A., I've lived my whole life within a mile of a rail line. It’s only in the last month that I have ever seen a mid-train locomotive. Something is definitely changing.
They started this process a long time ago. 2018 was when they first started talking about it, locally they did the first pilots about 2019 if memory serves.
Out here in the west, I have seen longer trains in the past few years, but I've been seeing mile-long trains for years. I never saw trains with more than 150 cars before the last few years, though.
I think the author was trying to explain the risks they are taking and saying that it's only a matter of time until we start to see disasters similar to the one in 2004 but 100 times worse.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/82/i27/TRAIN-DERAILS-CHLORINE-L....
https://cen.acs.org/articles/82/i27/TRAIN-DERAILS-CHLORINE-L....
Derailments could be getting worse even with fewer of them. The author of the letter is talking about the trend towards monster trains which suggests fewer trains being run. Is the number of derailments per train going up? Is the impact of the larger trains derailing leading to more overall impact because each individual derailment is larger even though there are few of them?
If I run half as many twice as large trains I'd expect fewer total derailments even if these monster trains derail more often than the more normal trains of yesteryear.
If I run half as many twice as large trains I'd expect fewer total derailments even if these monster trains derail more often than the more normal trains of yesteryear.
The gross number of derailments isn't very meaningful, what you need is the derailments per train-miles-traveled, analogous to the collisions per vehicle-miles-traveled that is used for road safety. If we're running fewer trains, obviously we should expect fewer derailments.
As some other commenters have noted, it might be even more useful to get the total weight of derailed cargo, per (mass times distance), I suppose.
As some other commenters have noted, it might be even more useful to get the total weight of derailed cargo, per (mass times distance), I suppose.
Is there comparable data on other countries? What is this a proxy for? (Track upkeep problems? Trains are too fast for the load? Signaling issues? Mechanical issues?)
Rail safety seems a lot less complex and pretty much as regulated as aviation safety, how come there aren't just ~1-2 per year? Is it just because fatalities are luckily fewer (due to the nature of these derailments) so no one really gives a shit?
Rail safety seems a lot less complex and pretty much as regulated as aviation safety, how come there aren't just ~1-2 per year? Is it just because fatalities are luckily fewer (due to the nature of these derailments) so no one really gives a shit?
It's just the forces of the trains. When it's not a derailment it's breaking them. They're doubling the running room for slack action^, for one. That's the least of the concern, but there's more potential for breakage because there's more potential for greater differences in velocity from one end of the train to the other. Topology also matters, previously consists here average 135 cars, but range from 115 to 150, they're 53' each. Usually they'll have 4-5 motors at 74' each. Suffice it to say, depending on the territory there can be huge force differentials generated which can break trains or rail, think cresting a grade on undulating hills. And you can "stringline" trains too, literally pull cars off the tracks, and it's exactly those forces that'd do it.
And then there's the human element. Nobody knows when they're going to work, how long it's going to take, what kind of bullshit they're going to run into. You can get stuck for long periods of time away from home terminal, and the Class 1 doesn't care. And there's things like rules on how to walk. The environment that's been constructed isn't meant for human consumption and it's taking a toll on the workforce. There's reams of other shit to whinge about.
And the derailments always matter, it's a total clusterfuck. They're not easy to fix, you've got to "bad order" and set out the car, at least by regulation. This involves rerailing, finding a set-out track, and making all the moves to get everything back in order. You've also got to wait for carmen (who are understaffed) and management, which depending on the route, could be a long sit. If it's bad enough it'll shut down traffic for a couple of days, requiring significant diversions around it while the Class 1 pays out the ass for a third party to come clean it all up and rerail shit.
None of the current infrastructure is built to deal with these train lengths, either, so everything moves slower. The fact the Surface Transportation Board had a hearing with the Class 1's, I think, is a pretty good indicator they're about as interested in moving goods as GE is in manufacturing.
^: Each coal car has two draw bars with +/- 2-3" about the same for shipping container cars (from eyeing it) of run built in. This varies with car, auto racks have way more run out. Opposing forces in the trainline will pull it apart, the more run to build the faster the opponent acceleration... This typically results in broken knuckles. But it is possible to just push cars off the rail with these forces, which is exacerbated by the doubled length.
And then there's the human element. Nobody knows when they're going to work, how long it's going to take, what kind of bullshit they're going to run into. You can get stuck for long periods of time away from home terminal, and the Class 1 doesn't care. And there's things like rules on how to walk. The environment that's been constructed isn't meant for human consumption and it's taking a toll on the workforce. There's reams of other shit to whinge about.
And the derailments always matter, it's a total clusterfuck. They're not easy to fix, you've got to "bad order" and set out the car, at least by regulation. This involves rerailing, finding a set-out track, and making all the moves to get everything back in order. You've also got to wait for carmen (who are understaffed) and management, which depending on the route, could be a long sit. If it's bad enough it'll shut down traffic for a couple of days, requiring significant diversions around it while the Class 1 pays out the ass for a third party to come clean it all up and rerail shit.
None of the current infrastructure is built to deal with these train lengths, either, so everything moves slower. The fact the Surface Transportation Board had a hearing with the Class 1's, I think, is a pretty good indicator they're about as interested in moving goods as GE is in manufacturing.
^: Each coal car has two draw bars with +/- 2-3" about the same for shipping container cars (from eyeing it) of run built in. This varies with car, auto racks have way more run out. Opposing forces in the trainline will pull it apart, the more run to build the faster the opponent acceleration... This typically results in broken knuckles. But it is possible to just push cars off the rail with these forces, which is exacerbated by the doubled length.
Thanks for the interesting details!
> None of the current infrastructure is built to deal with these train lengths, either, so everything moves slower.
Is it due to extra freight demand caused by the recent surge in consumer demand?
Or this was long way in the making, but the system's capacity seems to have basically topped out? (And any effort to move even more freight on this network will cost a lot more and cause a lot more pain and very likely fatalities for the humans involved?)
What's the "solution"? Building more tracks? Running more but smaller trains? (But I guess the trains are already long to keep fuel costs down?)
> None of the current infrastructure is built to deal with these train lengths, either, so everything moves slower.
Is it due to extra freight demand caused by the recent surge in consumer demand?
Or this was long way in the making, but the system's capacity seems to have basically topped out? (And any effort to move even more freight on this network will cost a lot more and cause a lot more pain and very likely fatalities for the humans involved?)
What's the "solution"? Building more tracks? Running more but smaller trains? (But I guess the trains are already long to keep fuel costs down?)
Here's the STB hearing. Timestamped to one of the more articulate old-head:
https://youtu.be/Q0rk5tnrFqA?t=9300
I think their new-fangled methods are crippling their ability to service the surge. I think their reputation and their current working environment has cost them people. I think all this has exacerbated the problem. If you Google Surface Transportation Board you'll find several articles about C1s being implicated in kneecapping business.
The megatrains are pretty old hat, they were being discussed while I was still in, 2017 or 2018. Shortly thereafter they started piloting the program. The problem is they just can't be accommodated, period. 150 car trains are bad enough, 270 cars and 6 engines is way worse. Sidings, yards, and loading facilities aren't built for it.
https://youtu.be/Q0rk5tnrFqA?t=9300
I think their new-fangled methods are crippling their ability to service the surge. I think their reputation and their current working environment has cost them people. I think all this has exacerbated the problem. If you Google Surface Transportation Board you'll find several articles about C1s being implicated in kneecapping business.
The megatrains are pretty old hat, they were being discussed while I was still in, 2017 or 2018. Shortly thereafter they started piloting the program. The problem is they just can't be accommodated, period. 150 car trains are bad enough, 270 cars and 6 engines is way worse. Sidings, yards, and loading facilities aren't built for it.
I don't know if there's comparable data, but I can tell you the mining companies in north west Australia would routinely run 300+ car trains without incident. But these were very much a straight line from the mine to the port without much civilization in between.
Well in the UK there were 11 derailments total in 2020-21. The UK has roughly ~10,000 miles of railway and the USA ~150,000. Probably not a good comparison tbh. EU wide would probably be more appropriate but I couldn't find anything.
https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/1999/rail-safety-2020-20...
https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/1999/rail-safety-2020-20...
Indeed, 5 derailments per day sounds like a lot
Perhaps there are different definitions of “derailed”.
After all one of the communication problems in this pandemic was that even technical, medical professionals could not agree on the definition of “airborne” as it relates to the public’s best interest.
After all one of the communication problems in this pandemic was that even technical, medical professionals could not agree on the definition of “airborne” as it relates to the public’s best interest.
it's easier to have less total derailments, but higher numbers of cars derailed.
Put every train car in the country on one train and derail it. Now 100% of the capacity was derailed, but it's an incredible success, because the number of train derailments shrank from 1056 to 1!
So much safety!
Put every train car in the country on one train and derail it. Now 100% of the capacity was derailed, but it's an incredible success, because the number of train derailments shrank from 1056 to 1!
So much safety!
a few other people have made a few suggestions about interpreting the data, but i would also like to add that the writer is specifically citing "Monster Trains" and that may or may not affect the interpretation of data.
still, awesome that you went to check the source.
still, awesome that you went to check the source.
During the first covid summer, with a friend, we studied two interesting points for the future: oil consumption relative to GDP (irrelevant here), and what is sometime called demographic dividend, or how infrastructure spending during time of growth will allow an aging population an easier life in the future. Since we thought western countries to be all the same, we studied France and its infrastructure cost, then China, then the other Brics, plus Turkey and some ex-colonial nation that got f*cked off their own demographic dividend by the west.
What we are sure off: maintenance is immensly cheaper than construction, three to five order of magnitude in most cases, and improvement upon existing infrastructure is one to two order of magnitude cheaper. From this, we also concluded that subsidizing an almost empty line on the west coast during more than twenty year actually was a net positive operation for the French government, and killing small train tracks is in 99% of case a mistake.
My really friendly advice to americans, whatever their political leaning: do not kill your rail, improve on it even. This will be a net positive for your country, even if atm it seems like it is loosing you money. You can't afford to not maintain your infrastructure, or to forget about it.
What we are sure off: maintenance is immensly cheaper than construction, three to five order of magnitude in most cases, and improvement upon existing infrastructure is one to two order of magnitude cheaper. From this, we also concluded that subsidizing an almost empty line on the west coast during more than twenty year actually was a net positive operation for the French government, and killing small train tracks is in 99% of case a mistake.
My really friendly advice to americans, whatever their political leaning: do not kill your rail, improve on it even. This will be a net positive for your country, even if atm it seems like it is loosing you money. You can't afford to not maintain your infrastructure, or to forget about it.
There's also a really good Freakanomics on this: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/in-praise-of-maintenance/
Speaking with railroader friends changed my mind on train unions.
To an outsider, they sound terribly unreasonable, but speaking with people in the trenches has made me a believer in these unions, for whatever that is worth.
To an outsider, they sound terribly unreasonable, but speaking with people in the trenches has made me a believer in these unions, for whatever that is worth.
> To an outsider, they sound terribly unreasonable
? To someone in the EU, it sounds bizarre that they would NOT have a union.
? To someone in the EU, it sounds bizarre that they would NOT have a union.
Americans are taught to find them terribly unreasonable by default. This teaching used to be done with bullets and clubs.
How's this lesson been taught since then?
Us Americans have been brainwashed against unions. We have TV shows portraying "the lazy union worker". We have an entire political party dedicated to talking about how unions raise costs, are corrupt, and have burdensome dues. Any shop in the US that starts talk about unions will hire union busting PR firms and shove anti-union propaganda and fear mongering down employee's throats.
Americans hate unions because big business here has been effective at demonizing them.
Americans hate unions because big business here has been effective at demonizing them.
This is an American board so we’re supposed to gasp in disbelief and/or be intrigued when someone says that a particular kind of union is not inherently evil.
Could you give examples of any kind? At the end you say "for whatever that is worth", but its worthiness is low given there are no specifics and I don't know you.
Sure, a couple different ones.
The first involved an engineer friend who literally "went off the rails" with one of these big trains. The union went to bat for him for six months or a year or something to try and protect his job. Ultimately they determined that he was at fault, but without the union he would have had no representation or recourse against the train company at all.
A number of others involve injury: the unions make it difficult to terminate employees who are injured on the job; we don't really hear about how dangerous train work is. The article mentions that the conductor is "two" or "three miles" down the track at the end of train.
That is a big deal, because the engineer doesn't necessarily have immediate feedback on when to stop. I've seen with my own eyes guys on the ground trying to guide one of these super-long trains into the yard to connect to other cars and that is some scary stuff.
Finally, furloughs. I've had friends who were furloughed from their jobs at the train companies for years and had to go get a job at a grocery store stocking shelves. The train industry seems so have some regulation games going on at the governmental level and the union level. I'm not sure these guys would ever get their jobs back, with seniority, without union bargaining and playing interference with government.
The first involved an engineer friend who literally "went off the rails" with one of these big trains. The union went to bat for him for six months or a year or something to try and protect his job. Ultimately they determined that he was at fault, but without the union he would have had no representation or recourse against the train company at all.
A number of others involve injury: the unions make it difficult to terminate employees who are injured on the job; we don't really hear about how dangerous train work is. The article mentions that the conductor is "two" or "three miles" down the track at the end of train.
That is a big deal, because the engineer doesn't necessarily have immediate feedback on when to stop. I've seen with my own eyes guys on the ground trying to guide one of these super-long trains into the yard to connect to other cars and that is some scary stuff.
Finally, furloughs. I've had friends who were furloughed from their jobs at the train companies for years and had to go get a job at a grocery store stocking shelves. The train industry seems so have some regulation games going on at the governmental level and the union level. I'm not sure these guys would ever get their jobs back, with seniority, without union bargaining and playing interference with government.
[deleted]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZpUD9KgYc4
I still can't get over how little view count this video got
I still can't get over how little view count this video got
I can't help but wonder if this sort of stuff would already be banned in the USA had the Lac-Mégantic disaster happened 35km or so further south.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaste...
https://ici.radio-canada.ca/recit-numerique/891/bande-dessin...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaste...
https://ici.radio-canada.ca/recit-numerique/891/bande-dessin...
Okay but Lac Megantic had nothing to do with "monster trains" iirc. Understaffing maybe, but not monster trains.
AFAIK, the Lac Megantic disaster happened like this: A train was parked at the top of a hill, the locomotive that was powering the pneumatic brake was failing and smoking, and the conductor did not manually set enough of the manual back-up hand-brakes to keep the train in place if the failing locomotive was shut off and brake-pressure was lost, and he failed to properly test the hand brakes before leaving for the night. The brakes failed and so it went down hill while trying to break, which naturally led to sparks, fire, derailment, and ultimately explosion.
More manpower or supervision could've prevented the disaster, or better maintenance on the locomotive. Or better automation on brakes.
But it was not a matter of length, which seems to be the main thrust of this article.
AFAIK, the Lac Megantic disaster happened like this: A train was parked at the top of a hill, the locomotive that was powering the pneumatic brake was failing and smoking, and the conductor did not manually set enough of the manual back-up hand-brakes to keep the train in place if the failing locomotive was shut off and brake-pressure was lost, and he failed to properly test the hand brakes before leaving for the night. The brakes failed and so it went down hill while trying to break, which naturally led to sparks, fire, derailment, and ultimately explosion.
More manpower or supervision could've prevented the disaster, or better maintenance on the locomotive. Or better automation on brakes.
But it was not a matter of length, which seems to be the main thrust of this article.
This calls for (not really) malicious compliance. There is a phone number at all train crossings (at least in my state) to call and let them know if there are issues or if a train made you wait too long. The amount of time you can be made to wait at a crossing varies by state. Find out that time, and call the number posted at the crossing or look it up in advance and complain every time your wait violates the law/rules. You will get train size reduced. Get everyone you know to call in and enforce the rules. I call every time I have to wait longer than the rule.
Idaho law says so long as the train is moving, it can take as long as it likes :(
[1]
They put up a 15 minute limit, but then put in "Oh, but so long as the train is doing 'SOMETHING' then that limit doesn't count".
[1] https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title49/t...
They put up a 15 minute limit, but then put in "Oh, but so long as the train is doing 'SOMETHING' then that limit doesn't count".
[1] https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title49/t...
Definitions matter for laws. Switching in this context is not yard switching, as that is limited to the yard. It is only for actual trains switching tracks. The railroad often abuses the yard switching with stopped trains blocking intersections for long periods of time. That violates both the definition of switching (because yard switching is only done within a yard by definition and definition is what matters for legal statutes) and normal switching only applies "when the train is in motion" for the Idaho statute. Either way, call the number and complain. Malicious compliance has power.
I'm struggling with the first paragraph:
> A fellow engineer passed along information from another engineer, who I have never met, Mike, 17 years an engineer, like me, with a degree, like me (art, English), which has led to writing this body.
Am I reading this right? The content of this article is hearsay twice removed?
> A fellow engineer passed along information from another engineer, who I have never met, Mike, 17 years an engineer, like me, with a degree, like me (art, English), which has led to writing this body.
Am I reading this right? The content of this article is hearsay twice removed?
Buy the rumor, sell the news.
Rumors aren't admissible as court evidence. But rumors are worth looking into, they might have insights into communities we otherwise are ignoring.
If railroad engineers have a well known issue, such as the sudden loss of engineer/conductor skills due to retirement and/or quitting for other jobs, that's something that can be verified by other railroad engineers.
We all know that last year was "The Great retirement". I can imagine that a large number of skilled people have left the workforce... and their replacements are going to have to learn all of the problems and take years to retrain to their level.
Rumors aren't admissible as court evidence. But rumors are worth looking into, they might have insights into communities we otherwise are ignoring.
If railroad engineers have a well known issue, such as the sudden loss of engineer/conductor skills due to retirement and/or quitting for other jobs, that's something that can be verified by other railroad engineers.
We all know that last year was "The Great retirement". I can imagine that a large number of skilled people have left the workforce... and their replacements are going to have to learn all of the problems and take years to retrain to their level.
The genesis may have been hearsay but the claim itself is verifiable. Are trains of the size he is describing derailing on a higher frequency? Are train lengths exceeding the safety margins of the yards and equipment?
Hearsay can be a valuable tool in prompting that process of verification.
Hearsay can be a valuable tool in prompting that process of verification.
For what it's worth, there's another thread in these comments that point to data supporting that the length of trains is going up (+ ~25%), but derailments have gone down, by more than 25%. So maybe fewer trains derailing, but the ones that do are having bigger negative consequences.
yeah, I did a very quick look at some literature, most of it was behind paywalls so my search wasn't comprehensive, but it looked like a large train was more susceptible to derailment but the reduction in the number of trains running actually resulted in a decrease in total derailments.
To me this suggest a much more in-depth analysis is needed.
To me this suggest a much more in-depth analysis is needed.
No, I took it as "asking for a friend"
I was much more offended by the abuse of commas.
I'm a bit rusty, but I think they are technically correctly placed— they separate many dependent clauses, interruptors and a time phrase from one independent clause at the beginning. The sentence is too structurally complex, though. My very strict undergraduate intro to expository writing class required using commas like this but it's definitely passé.
I have no opinion on the technical correctness of the sentence. But I know I would do a lot to avoid writing such sentence in my own writing, and that I would stop reading anything that hits me with such a monstrosity in the opening paragraph.
Right. It's too structurally complex but it's not the comma's fault.
[deleted]
When his bosses come after him for being a dirty scumbag killjoy (they won't use those exact words, but whatever words they use mean that), he can point to that sentence and say "I was just passing information, that's what I'm supposed to do - see employee handbook section X" (or similar).
Talk with locomotive operators, read their feeds on Twitter. This shit has been circulating all over the world, even here in Germany we have issues of that kind (not the massive length of the trains or double stacking because both is illegal here, but how staff is treated).
[deleted]
[deleted]
You may be onto something.
>The Surface Transportation Board already knows this; the FRA knows this, the shippers know this; the car owners/lessees know this, the executives know this; and certainly the front line knows all too well
If all these people know about it, why haven't we heard of this before?
>The Surface Transportation Board already knows this; the FRA knows this, the shippers know this; the car owners/lessees know this, the executives know this; and certainly the front line knows all too well
If all these people know about it, why haven't we heard of this before?
> If all these people know about it, why haven't we heard of this before?
While I submit that the article has probably no value on its own, I don't think your argument makes sense either.
I think it is expected that people in position of power don't publicly speak about everything. I mean on one end of the spectrum nobody talked about dragnet until someone did. On the other end, "no one" talked about the problems with Boeing 737 max problem until planes started falling off the sky in the sense that we didn't pay attention.
I think why haven't we heard of this before is not an argument.
While I submit that the article has probably no value on its own, I don't think your argument makes sense either.
I think it is expected that people in position of power don't publicly speak about everything. I mean on one end of the spectrum nobody talked about dragnet until someone did. On the other end, "no one" talked about the problems with Boeing 737 max problem until planes started falling off the sky in the sense that we didn't pay attention.
I think why haven't we heard of this before is not an argument.
I presume we all here work at some kind of tech firm?
Do you think railroad engineers / conductors would know about a crappy API being pushed by Microsoft or Apple that would affect application development over the next 5 years?
Its not like we computer-engineers/software-engineers air out our dirty laundry each day to the public.
Do you think railroad engineers / conductors would know about a crappy API being pushed by Microsoft or Apple that would affect application development over the next 5 years?
Its not like we computer-engineers/software-engineers air out our dirty laundry each day to the public.
Or how many of us know about a terribly unreliable internal database that backs a product critical to core business functionality?
One difference is that when the HN crowd screws something up, twitter goes down for a few minutes, GitHub is offline for hours, not much to really complain about.
A PSR leaves the rails and people can very easily die, and at some point there will be a major event.
A PSR leaves the rails and people can very easily die, and at some point there will be a major event.
I've heard it shrug.
My brother tried working for the railroads. He quit within a month.
It's lonely, it's dangerous, and you don't want to know how reckless the trains are being run in the US (around the midwest). There are train overpasses in my area which are cracked and falling apart (I can send you pictures).
The number of derailings, the amount of hazardous material (chlorine is a blip), and the skill drain has brought the rail industry to a crisis point. We're just waiting for its Hindenburg moment.
The number of derailings, the amount of hazardous material (chlorine is a blip), and the skill drain has brought the rail industry to a crisis point. We're just waiting for its Hindenburg moment.
I follow industry news and talk to folks employed by Class I's, and this is not recent news. I would generally agree with the statement - if your job is to be aware of railroad industry issues, this will be at the top of your list or you'd simply be incompetent.
This article is strange in that it's focusing on a single issue of "PSR", but in general terms anyone casually following the industry even as a fan would be well aware of the labor vs. management conflict that has been brewing and escalating for decades. You can only squeeze so much efficiency out of systems before they break.
This article is strange in that it's focusing on a single issue of "PSR", but in general terms anyone casually following the industry even as a fan would be well aware of the labor vs. management conflict that has been brewing and escalating for decades. You can only squeeze so much efficiency out of systems before they break.
I bet there are tons of things in every industry that are "widely" known that you've never heard. I bet this is true of your industry. Why would I make that bet? Because it's extremely unlikely that you know everything, and I will take that bet for any person in any industry about any industry.
I'm certain your ignorance is a sign of something suspicious - just not about this topic.
I'm certain your ignorance is a sign of something suspicious - just not about this topic.
>If all these people know about it, why haven't we heard of this before?
Information hardly ever travels as fast as information can travel.
We've had arguments on HN about whether or not open secrets in tech are true. Some posters assembling a laundry list of reasons the assertion seemed unlikely or implausible. And other posters with first and second hand stories of it happening.
Why the fuck would we know anything about trains?
Information hardly ever travels as fast as information can travel.
We've had arguments on HN about whether or not open secrets in tech are true. Some posters assembling a laundry list of reasons the assertion seemed unlikely or implausible. And other posters with first and second hand stories of it happening.
Why the fuck would we know anything about trains?
Trains derailing regularly is consider acceptable and to be expected, infrastructure being tasked with jobs for which it was not designed, calls for more resources ignored, policy makers prioritizing profit over safe and efficient transportation of goods.
This sounds like something from a fictional dystopian novel.
This sounds like something from a fictional dystopian novel.
This just in: the Surface Transportation Board is requesting additional data from the Class Is for reasons that sound highly relevant to the original article. https://www.progressiverailroading.com/federal_legislation_r...
My time in rail was all related to positive train control (PTC), which is a safety overlay that stops the train before anything bad happens, at least in theory. The railroads generally despised the idea because it would slow down overall network velocity. It was only when it was mandated that they really got started with it beyond science projects.
I'm pretty far from rail these days, so I know I'm out of date. But as I recall, the prediction algorithms didn't work as well with distributed power (locomotive in the middle of the train, almost required for trains this long). So it's entirely possible that these super-long trains aren't able to predict unsafe conditions. I also vaguely recall they didn't predict anything to do with buff and draft forces (or other in-train forces) that could lead to the kind of derailments the article discussed.
This seems odd given the safety culture of railroads (every meeting I attended as a vendor, even if it was just a handful of people who had known each other for years, started with a safety briefing that included evacuation instructions and who was CPR qualified, along with tripping hazards and such). But around the time I was leaving the industry, CSX was spending lots of millions of dollars to bring the (now-late) Hunter Harrison in to implement Precision Scheduled Railroading. That led to a rush for other roads to implement it, to the point where I believe BNSF is the only Class I that does not do PSR. And PSR is all about reducing costs, cutting manpower, mothballing locomotives—which absolutely could lead to the sort of stuff this article is about. And, because it is (at least was) so fashionable in the industry, a road moving away from PSR (whether announced or just in practice) would likely see a stock price plunge and a CEO change.
Makes me wonder if, stuck between a rock and a hard place (ballast and the rail?), the roads are hoping the STB steps in and makes a rule to stop their game of chicken.
My time in rail was all related to positive train control (PTC), which is a safety overlay that stops the train before anything bad happens, at least in theory. The railroads generally despised the idea because it would slow down overall network velocity. It was only when it was mandated that they really got started with it beyond science projects.
I'm pretty far from rail these days, so I know I'm out of date. But as I recall, the prediction algorithms didn't work as well with distributed power (locomotive in the middle of the train, almost required for trains this long). So it's entirely possible that these super-long trains aren't able to predict unsafe conditions. I also vaguely recall they didn't predict anything to do with buff and draft forces (or other in-train forces) that could lead to the kind of derailments the article discussed.
This seems odd given the safety culture of railroads (every meeting I attended as a vendor, even if it was just a handful of people who had known each other for years, started with a safety briefing that included evacuation instructions and who was CPR qualified, along with tripping hazards and such). But around the time I was leaving the industry, CSX was spending lots of millions of dollars to bring the (now-late) Hunter Harrison in to implement Precision Scheduled Railroading. That led to a rush for other roads to implement it, to the point where I believe BNSF is the only Class I that does not do PSR. And PSR is all about reducing costs, cutting manpower, mothballing locomotives—which absolutely could lead to the sort of stuff this article is about. And, because it is (at least was) so fashionable in the industry, a road moving away from PSR (whether announced or just in practice) would likely see a stock price plunge and a CEO change.
Makes me wonder if, stuck between a rock and a hard place (ballast and the rail?), the roads are hoping the STB steps in and makes a rule to stop their game of chicken.
People are also leaving because the schedules they have to keep are unpredictable and horrible. My brother-in-law worked for a bit as an engineer, and as a person low on the totem pole, got bad assignments (all of the more senior people took the decent ones) and often didn't have a schedule until a day or two before the train was scheduled to leave. It hurt his social life substantially, because he couldn't plan on anything. Then COVID hit, and even though the company has hurting for people to run the trains, he was furloughed "until further notice" with no potential return date. Honestly, the companies are doing this to themselves with poor management.
The most concrete thing I read in the article seems to be:
"These trains exceed the coupler and drawbar limits of the very cars themselves."
This seems like something that can be explicitly proven true or false, so I would be interested to see whether that claim is true on investigation.
"These trains exceed the coupler and drawbar limits of the very cars themselves."
This seems like something that can be explicitly proven true or false, so I would be interested to see whether that claim is true on investigation.
To run even a, say, “simple” traditional grain train—6,700 feet, 28 million pounds—through the ice fog of a late February night, applying the physics of the horsepower and weight to a landscape you cannot see, but must know—every inch of, every hill and dip, every crossing, every signal mast is something no office worker can imagine.
Why are train engineers expected to know every nuance of the route, when it should be trivial to do fine-grained GPS maps of the tracks and provide moving map displays that could show every hill and dip, every crossing, every signal mast. This shouldn't be left up to the memory of the engineers.
There's already automation that could enforce speed limits, but for some reason it relies on track-side equipment so isn't universally available:
https://www.businessinsider.com/amtrak-derail-washington-pos...
Why are train engineers expected to know every nuance of the route, when it should be trivial to do fine-grained GPS maps of the tracks and provide moving map displays that could show every hill and dip, every crossing, every signal mast. This shouldn't be left up to the memory of the engineers.
There's already automation that could enforce speed limits, but for some reason it relies on track-side equipment so isn't universally available:
https://www.businessinsider.com/amtrak-derail-washington-pos...
The advancements in equipment to clean up after a large and/or complicated derailments contributes to these "acceptable" number of derailments. This includes roadbed, rail, and specialized equipment to move cars and locomotives. There are even 3rd party companies that specialize in railroad derailments.
Large wrecks can be cleaned up in 24 hours.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkui84o6rNA
Large wrecks can be cleaned up in 24 hours.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkui84o6rNA
There are several hot takes on the accuracy of various numbers (train derailment, for example), but that is not the most striking point of the article. The article is raising alarms about labor shortages and the effect on safety and deliverability of large loads (monster trains). It is another data point to bolster the idea that the US supply chain is under a lot of stress.
This reads like it's straight out of Atlas Shrugged.
Glad to see someone else noticed the similarity.
I was more subtle in my comment, hoping that someone would pick up the thread and point it out.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31315171
I was more subtle in my comment, hoping that someone would pick up the thread and point it out.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31315171
Except that for Rand, this is utopia.
I would encourage people to read Rand on their own instead of going by untrue comments like this one.
Atlas Shrugged is characteristically dystopian. Reading the book will not change this fact:
>The book depicts a dystopian United States in which private businesses suffer under increasingly burdensome laws and regulations. Railroad executive Dagny Taggart and her lover, steel magnate Hank Rearden, struggle against "looters" who want to exploit their productivity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged
Prodigious nationalization and planned labor is the entire premise for Rand's arguments in the book.
>The book depicts a dystopian United States in which private businesses suffer under increasingly burdensome laws and regulations. Railroad executive Dagny Taggart and her lover, steel magnate Hank Rearden, struggle against "looters" who want to exploit their productivity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged
Prodigious nationalization and planned labor is the entire premise for Rand's arguments in the book.
Right. We are not in disagreement.
I have tried, but life is too short for that kind of self-flagellation.
So you are a typical Rand nay-sayer in that you haven't actually read the book.
Lots of people love her books and don't view reading them as self-flaggelation, including myself.
On the other hand, lots of people view reading a basic calculus textbook as self-flaggelation, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.
Lots of people love her books and don't view reading them as self-flaggelation, including myself.
On the other hand, lots of people view reading a basic calculus textbook as self-flaggelation, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.
Finnucane(1)
I could never have read Atlas Shrugged if not for the audio book. I've always struggled with staying focused while reading a book. I'm too easily distracted.
If you are actually interested in learning more about the ideas presented in the book, I suggest you get a copy of the audio book. You might be able to find it at your local library ... thought I can't imagine how many CDs that would be. It's on Audible too, and other less official online sources.
For me, it's was sort of eye opening to read the book. It smoothed out some chips on my shoulder that drove my cynical view in life. Even though it was fiction, I still empathized with the character's struggles. I could connect it to real world events and human behavior that I had observed.
There are some books that help you see the world through different eyes. For me, Atlas Shrugged was an effective one.
The Fountainhead was similar. I connected with the frustration of young Wynand's attempts at grade school, only to find himself surrounded by dumb children and incompetent adults.
If you are actually interested in learning more about the ideas presented in the book, I suggest you get a copy of the audio book. You might be able to find it at your local library ... thought I can't imagine how many CDs that would be. It's on Audible too, and other less official online sources.
For me, it's was sort of eye opening to read the book. It smoothed out some chips on my shoulder that drove my cynical view in life. Even though it was fiction, I still empathized with the character's struggles. I could connect it to real world events and human behavior that I had observed.
There are some books that help you see the world through different eyes. For me, Atlas Shrugged was an effective one.
The Fountainhead was similar. I connected with the frustration of young Wynand's attempts at grade school, only to find himself surrounded by dumb children and incompetent adults.
I'm re-reading Atlas Shrugged now for the second time (first time was 10 years ago), I enjoy it even more now, there are many things I found boring the first time around in the first few 100 pages, but now that I know where it is going I'm picking up a lot of subtle things that make the whole experience more interesting.
I don't understand why HNers sometimes are so anti Ayn Rand, it seems to me that Dagny and Hank are true entrepreneurs. And if you ask me, very ethical because they absolutely abhor influencing the government to get what they want and they are ruthlessly honest with very transparent intentions. Very refreshing. I really would have liked to learn Ayn's opinion on modern surveillance capitalism, I bet it would match the prevailing opinions here.
Moreover, her take on female sexuality must have been revolutionaire at the time, I mean in the 60s Kirk was considered progressive while looking a female medical dokter up and down and remarking that he could not get used to women on the bridge. And here is Ayn presenting Dagny Taggart, with modern (well almost, don’t quote out of context) views on female sexuality even in 2022.
I don't understand why HNers sometimes are so anti Ayn Rand, it seems to me that Dagny and Hank are true entrepreneurs. And if you ask me, very ethical because they absolutely abhor influencing the government to get what they want and they are ruthlessly honest with very transparent intentions. Very refreshing. I really would have liked to learn Ayn's opinion on modern surveillance capitalism, I bet it would match the prevailing opinions here.
Moreover, her take on female sexuality must have been revolutionaire at the time, I mean in the 60s Kirk was considered progressive while looking a female medical dokter up and down and remarking that he could not get used to women on the bridge. And here is Ayn presenting Dagny Taggart, with modern (well almost, don’t quote out of context) views on female sexuality even in 2022.
> I'm picking up a lot of subtle things that make the whole experience more interesting.
That's a common experience. It's like some people are reading the books in low resolution. That's why they think the characters are simplistic. If you re-read, you start realizing that all the little details matter and are part of the story.
> Moreover, her take on female sexuality must have been revolutionaire at the time
It was. What other work of art published in the 1950s or earlier has a female protagonist, a businesswoman, with multiple lovers?
That's a common experience. It's like some people are reading the books in low resolution. That's why they think the characters are simplistic. If you re-read, you start realizing that all the little details matter and are part of the story.
> Moreover, her take on female sexuality must have been revolutionaire at the time
It was. What other work of art published in the 1950s or earlier has a female protagonist, a businesswoman, with multiple lovers?
Hah, had to chime in here. Unfortunately everyone is so poisoned by untrue things about Rand that people still come out at the end of the day thinking she's a libertarian. Or complaining that the characters are totally unrealistic without realizing the characters are meant to represent ideological extremes rather than real people.
The characters are not meant to represent ideological extremes. Rand was a novelist primarily and a philosopher only secondarily. She got into philosophy because she wanted to figure out what humans at their best would look like and be like---so that she could put them into a novel.
In Atlas Shrugged, the characters do come across as ideological extremes and not real people, if you go into the book expecting them to be that way. The book has a lot of depth that is missed by people who go into it for the philosophy.
Within philosophy, Rand was least concerned about politics and the economy, and most concerned about man's mind and emotions and man's relationship to reality and to other men. Sure, you can read Atlas as some kind of political treatise, and the characters will come across as flat, because you are missing the point entirely and not picking up on 95% of what's in the book.
In The Fountainhead, the characters don't come across as representing ideological extremes regardless of your approach to the book, IMHO. Anyway I'd recommend The Fountainhead over Atlas for someone new to Rand.
Agreed that Rand is not a libertarian.
In Atlas Shrugged, the characters do come across as ideological extremes and not real people, if you go into the book expecting them to be that way. The book has a lot of depth that is missed by people who go into it for the philosophy.
Within philosophy, Rand was least concerned about politics and the economy, and most concerned about man's mind and emotions and man's relationship to reality and to other men. Sure, you can read Atlas as some kind of political treatise, and the characters will come across as flat, because you are missing the point entirely and not picking up on 95% of what's in the book.
In The Fountainhead, the characters don't come across as representing ideological extremes regardless of your approach to the book, IMHO. Anyway I'd recommend The Fountainhead over Atlas for someone new to Rand.
Agreed that Rand is not a libertarian.
I'll have to admit I've never read all of Atlas Shrugged (not even close btw; I made it a bit past Dagny's introduction) but I have read Fountainhead twice and a most of her non-fiction stuff. I'm not sure if it's my age but The Fountainhead got me hooked instantly when I read it at 23. I didn't even try to read Atlas Shrugged until 10 years later but it felt like such a slog and I can't manage to read it.
My view of the characters has evolved into considering them ideological extremes because of how common it is for people to dismiss her on the basis that the characters do things no normal person would do.
So I've just given up on considering the characters people you can _be_. Like you said, the characters are people at their best. IMO that means the characters are meant to be perfect and by accepting the characters are perfect people, and that nobody is perfect, I'm ok considering the characters are extremes of their ideologies their meant to represent. So when the "not real people!!" arguments come out it's just "they're not supposed to be, they're ideologies and a person can't be an ideology".
btw I think we mostly agree and I'm enjoying reading your other comments in this thread. I also recommend The Fountainhead and then using the Ayn Rand Lexicon or her non-fiction to learn more. The nice thing about those is there's quotes from Atlas Shrugged and as long as you know the characters and overall story you don't need the entire book.
My view of the characters has evolved into considering them ideological extremes because of how common it is for people to dismiss her on the basis that the characters do things no normal person would do.
So I've just given up on considering the characters people you can _be_. Like you said, the characters are people at their best. IMO that means the characters are meant to be perfect and by accepting the characters are perfect people, and that nobody is perfect, I'm ok considering the characters are extremes of their ideologies their meant to represent. So when the "not real people!!" arguments come out it's just "they're not supposed to be, they're ideologies and a person can't be an ideology".
btw I think we mostly agree and I'm enjoying reading your other comments in this thread. I also recommend The Fountainhead and then using the Ayn Rand Lexicon or her non-fiction to learn more. The nice thing about those is there's quotes from Atlas Shrugged and as long as you know the characters and overall story you don't need the entire book.
I don't agree that the characters do things no normal person would do or that they are perfect. That just isn't the case at all. If you read the book, you will see. There is a a lot of depth and variety in the characters. All of them (heroes, villains and those that are neither) have flaws they have to cope with and false beliefs they have to overcome (or not). For instance, Rearden gives moral sanction to people who are parasites on him. Dagny keeps trying to run the railroad when the other heroes have stopped. Rand was a really good novelist, in the Romantic tradition of novelists like Victor Hugo. Which makes sense---writing novels was her primary love in life.
I also don't believe someone can get a good understanding of Rand's philosophy without reading Atlas. Atlas paints a picture of the kind of things Rand saw in the world that she used to induce (derive) her philosophy. Without that context, you lose too much.
Anyway, I'm happy we're getting to chat about Atlas, and I'm glad you've enjoyed some of my comments.
I also don't believe someone can get a good understanding of Rand's philosophy without reading Atlas. Atlas paints a picture of the kind of things Rand saw in the world that she used to induce (derive) her philosophy. Without that context, you lose too much.
Anyway, I'm happy we're getting to chat about Atlas, and I'm glad you've enjoyed some of my comments.
interesting background on Rand, thank you. From your descriptions, if you're right in your assertions, it seems as if her fiction has been hijacked by dismal extreme libertarians taking characters as if they are paragons of virtue, rather than problematic examples.
Not to disagree with you, but to put a finer point on it...
I feel like the characters are not "paragons of virtue" because they are not meant to be imitated. That is a common mistake by both fans and detractors of Rand. Nor are the characters meant to be representations of abstract ideas. They are just characters, complex ones. But like any good writer---say Hugo or Dostoevsky---the author is putting part of himself or herself into the characters and thus the characters have a morality to them that reflects the views of the author.
I feel like calling the characters "problematic examples" may be overstating it a bit. For example, Jean Valjean in Les Miserables is a heroic character who has a character arc where he learns from his mistakes and his character becomes more heroic over time. Rand's "good" characters are like that. Her "neutral" or "bad" characters don't learn from their mistakes. (edit: Well, some of the relatively neutral ones actually do, and have positive arcs.)
FYI, Rand hated libertarians and rejected libertarianism.
Still, a lot of libertarians claim to like her, and don't understand that their political views resemble only a small subset of her overall philosophy---and even then, it's more of a resemblance than actual agreement.
I feel like the characters are not "paragons of virtue" because they are not meant to be imitated. That is a common mistake by both fans and detractors of Rand. Nor are the characters meant to be representations of abstract ideas. They are just characters, complex ones. But like any good writer---say Hugo or Dostoevsky---the author is putting part of himself or herself into the characters and thus the characters have a morality to them that reflects the views of the author.
I feel like calling the characters "problematic examples" may be overstating it a bit. For example, Jean Valjean in Les Miserables is a heroic character who has a character arc where he learns from his mistakes and his character becomes more heroic over time. Rand's "good" characters are like that. Her "neutral" or "bad" characters don't learn from their mistakes. (edit: Well, some of the relatively neutral ones actually do, and have positive arcs.)
FYI, Rand hated libertarians and rejected libertarianism.
Still, a lot of libertarians claim to like her, and don't understand that their political views resemble only a small subset of her overall philosophy---and even then, it's more of a resemblance than actual agreement.
Not in the slightest.
You have not read any Ayn Rand, have you?
So if I understand this correctly, shorter trains are better because when they derail they take down less cars? Or are super long trains harder to control in varied terrain? Both probably.
Shorter trains are better on a lot of metrics except the number of crews you need driving trains around, basically. Except that everything ends up taking longer with the longer train, so you have a bit of a false economy, although I'm guessing it's not false enough to make it undesirable.
To mention an issue that I don't think was well-touched upon in the article -- in a lot of places, you have single tracks running from point A to point B, with the occasional side track a train can park on to let another train past.
But these side tracks may only be a mile or so long -- what happens when two three-mile trains need to pass each other using a 1 mile side track? A fun puzzle, but not very fun to implement the solution in real time.
To mention an issue that I don't think was well-touched upon in the article -- in a lot of places, you have single tracks running from point A to point B, with the occasional side track a train can park on to let another train past.
But these side tracks may only be a mile or so long -- what happens when two three-mile trains need to pass each other using a 1 mile side track? A fun puzzle, but not very fun to implement the solution in real time.
Well it's not really fun nor a puzzle, they simply can't pass each other, and the dispatcher will have to look for the next suitable sidings.
As a puzzle, suppose ABC is going that way -> and and 123 is going <- that way, each 3 miles long, broken into segments A/B/C and 1/2/3, respectively. Let '-' be the siding, able to hold a mile-long set of cars.
This solution limits the maximum length to 3 miles. A 4 mile long solution would keep 1 coupled to 23 while moving C from the siding back to the mainline.
ABC ... 123
`-'
AB ... 123
`C'
AB123 ...
`C'
AB1 ... 23C
`-'
AB ... 123.C
`-'
This solution limits the maximum length to 3 miles. A 4 mile long solution would keep 1 coupled to 23 while moving C from the siding back to the mainline.
Based on my uninformed reading, these super trains are beyond what the existing rail infrastructure was designed for, and therefore are significantly more likely to derail, while also being more expensive to clean up when they do detail.
Long trains don't "exist" in a way - because the couplers can't hold the weight, so you take a number of shorter trains and mash them together, and then "drive" it like that. It results in all sorts of "fun" that means if everything works perfectly; you save the cost of a crew or two - if anything goes wrong you have a derailment or worse.
Longer trains derail much much easier. For example consider the "straight lining" phenomenon. Straight lining is a major cause for derailments. The straight lining forces are pretty much proportional to the weight of the cars behind the car that is subject to the straight lining forces.
No: they are more manageable and rely less on crews working 12hr shifts regularly so less mistakes happen.
- Shorter trains need less engines (or rather, they can be run with one or two locomotives). That means when one fails the conductor can immediately hear this and halt the train. When a mid- or end engine fails, it may escalate to catastrophic failure
- long trains have issues with brake apply speed - remember, train cars are dumb. No electricity, all they have (at least here in Europe) is one main brake line where the transmission speed is the speed of sound - that means, for a 700m long train a drop in pressure at the front is only registered after 2 seconds at the last carriage.
- long trains are a nightmare to shunt around. Not just because you have immense distance between the engine and the conductor at the end, but especially if the train has to run over a street level crossing. Old shunting yards simply were never estimated to run such long trains.
- long trains are a nightmare for residents along the lines for the same reason
- long and especially double stacked trains put up a hell of a lot more stress on the infrastructure than it was constructed for - remember again, this infra is sometimes well over a century old!
- long trains have issues with brake apply speed - remember, train cars are dumb. No electricity, all they have (at least here in Europe) is one main brake line where the transmission speed is the speed of sound - that means, for a 700m long train a drop in pressure at the front is only registered after 2 seconds at the last carriage.
- long trains are a nightmare to shunt around. Not just because you have immense distance between the engine and the conductor at the end, but especially if the train has to run over a street level crossing. Old shunting yards simply were never estimated to run such long trains.
- long trains are a nightmare for residents along the lines for the same reason
- long and especially double stacked trains put up a hell of a lot more stress on the infrastructure than it was constructed for - remember again, this infra is sometimes well over a century old!
Shorter trains are better because they are lighter and easier to control. The additional cars don't just make derailment worse, it causes the derailments to happen at all.
Unionize, unionize, unionize.
BNSF already has a union, but they can't strike due to a federal court's ruling [1], so more creative solutions will be required.
[1] https://www.freightwaves.com/news/federal-court-rules-unions...
[1] https://www.freightwaves.com/news/federal-court-rules-unions...
Sounds like their "creative solution" is quit.
Of course, this is predicated on the idea that the thirteen amendment will stand, and exceptions won't be carved out to force these people back to work. I acknowledge that recent events may have people questioning that supposition.
Of course, this is predicated on the idea that the thirteen amendment will stand, and exceptions won't be carved out to force these people back to work. I acknowledge that recent events may have people questioning that supposition.
Cops have always had "the blue flu". Why is there not more co-ordinated "sickness" ? Does it invite some kind of RICO prosecution ?
> I have given up enormous amounts of home and family life for insurance, for a living wage, for a trade that is respectable.
I think this is the problem - paying people in respect that you can't make a meal of. And what does the living wage mean? That you can come back from work, eat a meal and have somewhere to sleep? It's interesting that people are happy to be taxed to teeth, having very little in exchange and do nothing about the fact that corporations their work for don't pay much and if their bosses pay taxes, then it means they got lame accountants.
I think this is the problem - paying people in respect that you can't make a meal of. And what does the living wage mean? That you can come back from work, eat a meal and have somewhere to sleep? It's interesting that people are happy to be taxed to teeth, having very little in exchange and do nothing about the fact that corporations their work for don't pay much and if their bosses pay taxes, then it means they got lame accountants.
Recently made video summarizes the current situation (for those of us not familiar with it) : "Freight Trains in the US Are a Disaster Waiting to Happen" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9cc4Et-3Ck]
I was once chewed-out by an employer for arriving a few minutes late after waiting for a mile-long coal train to crawl past the only entrance to the town at 15mph. (A rarity at the time.) 16,450 feet? Wuf-da.
I was once chewed-out by an employer for arriving a few minutes late after waiting for a mile-long coal train to crawl past the only entrance to the town at 15mph. (A rarity at the time.) 16,450 feet? Wuf-da.
What innovations or ideas have been presented to reduce derailments?
What would it take to build a train that could sacrifice one car (i.e. let it derail) to save the rest of the train from the same fate?
Start by instrumenting each car and coupling with inertial and spatial sensors. Gather some stability control engineers from the automotive industry perhaps. What could be done?
What would it take to build a train that could sacrifice one car (i.e. let it derail) to save the rest of the train from the same fate?
Start by instrumenting each car and coupling with inertial and spatial sensors. Gather some stability control engineers from the automotive industry perhaps. What could be done?
This letter/article raises some great points. However, the writing style is kind of obtuse. The whole commentary-on-a-letter-I-received shtick makes this difficult to follow. It doesn't add anything either; you can read only the quoted paragraphs and understand the entire message while reading only half the article.
A side-by-side study of American and Chinese railways, perhaps a compare-and-contrast investigative journalism article, would make for interesting reading. China seems well ahead of the USA here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_China
> "China's railways are the busiest in the world. In 2019, railways in China delivered 3.660 billion passenger trips, generating 1,470.66 billion passenger-kilometres and carried 4.389 billion tonnes of freight, generating 3,018 billion cargo tonne-kilometres. Freight traffic turnover has increased more than fivefold over the period 1980-2013 and passenger traffic turnover has increased more than sevenfold over the same period. During the five years 2016-2020, China's railway network handled 14.9 billion passenger trips, 9 billion of which were completed by bullet trains, the remaining 5.9 billion by conventional rail."
I'm assuming that in the USA the major rail owners don't want to invest in infrastructure upgrades, and longer trains mean lower labor costs? The US government doesn't want to raise taxes to pay for massive infrastructure projects (FDR New Deal programs are not on the horizon for either party), so nobody will pick up the required bill and infrastructure will just continue degrading to Third World status?
The only new rail development being backed by the federal government looks like oil export trains in Utah... not exactly in line with Biden rhetoric on climate and renewable energy.
https://grist.org/politics/an-oil-train-is-set-to-destroy-pr...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_China
> "China's railways are the busiest in the world. In 2019, railways in China delivered 3.660 billion passenger trips, generating 1,470.66 billion passenger-kilometres and carried 4.389 billion tonnes of freight, generating 3,018 billion cargo tonne-kilometres. Freight traffic turnover has increased more than fivefold over the period 1980-2013 and passenger traffic turnover has increased more than sevenfold over the same period. During the five years 2016-2020, China's railway network handled 14.9 billion passenger trips, 9 billion of which were completed by bullet trains, the remaining 5.9 billion by conventional rail."
I'm assuming that in the USA the major rail owners don't want to invest in infrastructure upgrades, and longer trains mean lower labor costs? The US government doesn't want to raise taxes to pay for massive infrastructure projects (FDR New Deal programs are not on the horizon for either party), so nobody will pick up the required bill and infrastructure will just continue degrading to Third World status?
The only new rail development being backed by the federal government looks like oil export trains in Utah... not exactly in line with Biden rhetoric on climate and renewable energy.
https://grist.org/politics/an-oil-train-is-set-to-destroy-pr...
There is evidence that Chinese rail operators have deliberately hidden accidents and their costs. That makes Chinese rail transport extremely difficult to compare to American rail transport especially when the specific subject is the accumulated cost of accidents.
> nobody will pick up the required bill and infrastructure will just continue degrading to Third World status?
Laos, the poorest country in South East Asia which I guess would qualify as Third World, has a brand new Chinese-built high-speed railway. So I guess US railways are already worse than "Third World status".
Laos, the poorest country in South East Asia which I guess would qualify as Third World, has a brand new Chinese-built high-speed railway. So I guess US railways are already worse than "Third World status".
[deleted]
It's a shame this type of operation is so common.
The people at the top that have no experience of work on the ground making decisions that affect people doing that important work.
The people at the top that have no experience of work on the ground making decisions that affect people doing that important work.
I don't know the facts, but I do know a few WSJ reporters and read their paper every day.
Unlike most of what passes as "journalism" these days, these people actually do still practice journalism. So if monster trains are derailing, or even causing major delays, they will be on it. And people in Congress all read the WSJ.
Unlike most of what passes as "journalism" these days, these people actually do still practice journalism. So if monster trains are derailing, or even causing major delays, they will be on it. And people in Congress all read the WSJ.
That is an impressively written letter.
Atlas shrugged, it's happening!
I've always been puzzled by the rail industry, since in spite of having incredible potential for efficiency, it seems stuck in so many ways by history.
In this case, the impression I get is that we're seeing the result of too much hands-off self-organization. Sure, it's capitalism, but the Invisible Hand has never been conceived as the only factor driving behavior. Perhaps we should be reluctant to involve government, at least in making standards. But all industries have endo-regulation - internally decided protocols. Does this industry just need encouragement in that direction? Something like the ISO/ECMA/IETF bodies that have produced so much computer-related standardization?
Three-mile trains sound like a problem - but surely this is an empirical issue. I think part of what's missing is a clear, full-throated statement about where the industry is going. That it's not obsolete (which many people assume), and that it could use some further development in basics. Too often, public discussion on trains devolves into finger-pointing about why the country has no fast commuter routes (and the prodigious amounts of cash that have been poured onto that issue...)
Containerization was one of the best things to happen to the rail industry. But surely this sort of evolution would benefit from stewardship across industry, institutional and governmental groups. I'd love to know what the state of the industry is with respect to things like tracking, logistical responsiveness, smart/iot instrumentation, human interfaces, etc.
In this case, the impression I get is that we're seeing the result of too much hands-off self-organization. Sure, it's capitalism, but the Invisible Hand has never been conceived as the only factor driving behavior. Perhaps we should be reluctant to involve government, at least in making standards. But all industries have endo-regulation - internally decided protocols. Does this industry just need encouragement in that direction? Something like the ISO/ECMA/IETF bodies that have produced so much computer-related standardization?
Three-mile trains sound like a problem - but surely this is an empirical issue. I think part of what's missing is a clear, full-throated statement about where the industry is going. That it's not obsolete (which many people assume), and that it could use some further development in basics. Too often, public discussion on trains devolves into finger-pointing about why the country has no fast commuter routes (and the prodigious amounts of cash that have been poured onto that issue...)
Containerization was one of the best things to happen to the rail industry. But surely this sort of evolution would benefit from stewardship across industry, institutional and governmental groups. I'd love to know what the state of the industry is with respect to things like tracking, logistical responsiveness, smart/iot instrumentation, human interfaces, etc.
Capitalism struggles when there are shared resources like geographies. In the UK they just assigned a private rail operator to each region, and measured them. Not exactly an environment in which capitalism can do well.
The American workforce has been redlining on poorly staffed overworked jobs for decades. It's not surprising that we're losing workers left and right to fatigue. They treat the equipment better than the people who are doing the job and that is saying something because the equipment is poorly maintained as well. Nurses, doctors, teachers, railroad workers, truckers, clerks, salespeople, developers, builders, contractors, and everyone else.
However, with our current political system, the solutions to these problems are nearly impossible to accomplish. Unions, socialized health care, workers rights, mandated vacation time, overtime limits, minimum wages, and UBI are all lightyears away. Instead our politicians are stripping women of their human rights and attacking children while placing migrants into concentration camps.
However, with our current political system, the solutions to these problems are nearly impossible to accomplish. Unions, socialized health care, workers rights, mandated vacation time, overtime limits, minimum wages, and UBI are all lightyears away. Instead our politicians are stripping women of their human rights and attacking children while placing migrants into concentration camps.
> However, with our current political system, the solutions to these problems are nearly impossible to accomplish. Unions, socialized health care, workers rights, mandated vacation time, overtime limits, minimum wages, and UBI are all lightyears away.
All of those (except the UBI) exist in most developed countries.
There are many problems, from taxes (the poor already pay zero, the rich avoid them, the middle class gets fucked), to foreign/illegal worker (why pay a fair pay to a local worker, if you can employ a foreigner for cheaper), to widespread corruption, anti-covid measures (mostly printing money and giving it around, bringing high inflation), to political sanctions (eg. ukraine war - it's no different than eg. the war in afghanistan or iraq or libya, syria, etc., but somehow we act as if it is, and with many political steps inbetween, the gas prices and food prices are soaring high), to people abusing all the buzzowords you've mentioned in countries that have them.
Honestly, if just the police and courts did their jobs, and all the corruption was punished (from heads of government, to paying plumbers under the table and people abusing social benefits), a lot of the problems would be solved.
In my country, we just had an election, and the two most pressing matters were healthcare (fscked) and housing prices (double fscked). Noone on TV ever mentioned how much an average worker pays for healthcare (it's automatically deducted in two different ways from your "gross-gross" paycheck), because people would get mad and ask where does all the money (a lot of it) actually go,... and also noone asks why we can have cornfields and cows in prime locations of our capital city, and even more prime development land in other cities, and the government (from national to local) doesn't allow building there, to bring the prices down.
All of those (except the UBI) exist in most developed countries.
There are many problems, from taxes (the poor already pay zero, the rich avoid them, the middle class gets fucked), to foreign/illegal worker (why pay a fair pay to a local worker, if you can employ a foreigner for cheaper), to widespread corruption, anti-covid measures (mostly printing money and giving it around, bringing high inflation), to political sanctions (eg. ukraine war - it's no different than eg. the war in afghanistan or iraq or libya, syria, etc., but somehow we act as if it is, and with many political steps inbetween, the gas prices and food prices are soaring high), to people abusing all the buzzowords you've mentioned in countries that have them.
Honestly, if just the police and courts did their jobs, and all the corruption was punished (from heads of government, to paying plumbers under the table and people abusing social benefits), a lot of the problems would be solved.
In my country, we just had an election, and the two most pressing matters were healthcare (fscked) and housing prices (double fscked). Noone on TV ever mentioned how much an average worker pays for healthcare (it's automatically deducted in two different ways from your "gross-gross" paycheck), because people would get mad and ask where does all the money (a lot of it) actually go,... and also noone asks why we can have cornfields and cows in prime locations of our capital city, and even more prime development land in other cities, and the government (from national to local) doesn't allow building there, to bring the prices down.
> and also noone asks why we can have cornfields and cows in prime locations of our capital city, and even more prime development land in other cities, and the government (from national to local) doesn't allow building there, to bring the prices down.
For one, healthy good soil is rare and expensive. We're already wasting too much of it.
And as for "prime development land" - I know the thoughts as a Munich resident and every time I see a rare piece of land that's not been built I always think "just how much housing could be built there". The thing is, a city also needs un-obstructed green space for local micro-climate reasons [1]. You can't just build up everything and expect livable temperatures, especially not with climate change looming.
We should ask politicians instead why they let the rural areas rot to hell and beyond and people are forced to coop together in extremely dense unhealthy urban monster areas.
[1] https://www.local-energy.swiss/dam/jcr:0471327e-8fe2-4f9f-ac...
For one, healthy good soil is rare and expensive. We're already wasting too much of it.
And as for "prime development land" - I know the thoughts as a Munich resident and every time I see a rare piece of land that's not been built I always think "just how much housing could be built there". The thing is, a city also needs un-obstructed green space for local micro-climate reasons [1]. You can't just build up everything and expect livable temperatures, especially not with climate change looming.
We should ask politicians instead why they let the rural areas rot to hell and beyond and people are forced to coop together in extremely dense unhealthy urban monster areas.
[1] https://www.local-energy.swiss/dam/jcr:0471327e-8fe2-4f9f-ac...
I'm literally talking about an area inside the city highway ring or on the outer edge, with high congestion, where noone wants to eat food grown there.
On the other end of the spectrum, we have rural areas, where locals have been basically thrown out by airbnb (have kids, want them to live in your village? Good luck, no way), and we still don't let people build more houses there, even with a ban on airbnb.... one example, city of "lesce" where a friend wants to live, but can't neither buy or build anything there, nor extend his parents house:
https://goo.gl/maps/JV9aEBLEQS8aTsgM8
On the other end of the spectrum, we have rural areas, where locals have been basically thrown out by airbnb (have kids, want them to live in your village? Good luck, no way), and we still don't let people build more houses there, even with a ban on airbnb.... one example, city of "lesce" where a friend wants to live, but can't neither buy or build anything there, nor extend his parents house:
https://goo.gl/maps/JV9aEBLEQS8aTsgM8
> it's no different than eg. the war in afghanistan.
I agree. But that doesnt mean that we should care less about Ukraine though (which still makes sense bc its closer to 'home'), it means we should have cared way more about the same war happening in the middle east.
I agree. But that doesnt mean that we should care less about Ukraine though (which still makes sense bc its closer to 'home'), it means we should have cared way more about the same war happening in the middle east.
But you didn't care back then... also noone cared about yugoslavia/serbia in 1999, and it was even closer,... you just justified it the same way putin is now justifying the attack on ukraine. Yes, including bombing school, bridges, busses and trains full of people, etc.
The current sanctions are hurting european people a lot more than they are hurting putin, and thus should be removed. European/american/NATO soldiers should go home, since they are currently occupying more than one sovereing country (the same way putin is), and preferably do it a bit better than they did when they left afghanistan. Only after all of yours and ours (since my country is a part of nato too) soldiers are back home, can we point fingers at putin.
The current sanctions are hurting european people a lot more than they are hurting putin, and thus should be removed. European/american/NATO soldiers should go home, since they are currently occupying more than one sovereing country (the same way putin is), and preferably do it a bit better than they did when they left afghanistan. Only after all of yours and ours (since my country is a part of nato too) soldiers are back home, can we point fingers at putin.
First, 1999 was a generation ago (about 25 years). Priorities are allowed to change in a generation, in this case for the better. Sorry that your first response to drawing a line at bombing schools, bridges, busses in Ukraine is to shout 'what about...' instead of to be glad people are willing to you know, be against bombing schools, bridges, and busses in at least one situation.
Second, do you believe in preventative maintenance? In this case, Ukraine is preventative maintenance for future actions Russia will take (Russia has already shown from 2014 to now that it will make a peace deal, build strength, and attack again) that will result in more lives lost and worse economic impact. While the price is painful now, it is much less than it would be in 10 years.
Third, what countries meet the definition of being occupied by European/American/NATO soldiers in Europe? Definition: control and possession of hostile territory that enables an invading nation to establish military government against an enemy or martial law against rebels or insurrectionists in its own territory. Your twisting of you know, the actual meaning of words shows your comment is nothing but propaganda, in this case propaganda promoting the bombing of schools, bridges, busses and trains full of people because it has been done in the past and appeasing violence because it impacts your pocket book.
Second, do you believe in preventative maintenance? In this case, Ukraine is preventative maintenance for future actions Russia will take (Russia has already shown from 2014 to now that it will make a peace deal, build strength, and attack again) that will result in more lives lost and worse economic impact. While the price is painful now, it is much less than it would be in 10 years.
Third, what countries meet the definition of being occupied by European/American/NATO soldiers in Europe? Definition: control and possession of hostile territory that enables an invading nation to establish military government against an enemy or martial law against rebels or insurrectionists in its own territory. Your twisting of you know, the actual meaning of words shows your comment is nothing but propaganda, in this case propaganda promoting the bombing of schools, bridges, busses and trains full of people because it has been done in the past and appeasing violence because it impacts your pocket book.
We from the balkans still remember nato plans flying above our heads bombing a country 400km away. The problem is that, when americans do something like that (dorne bomb a wedding), people treat that as "ok", and the bombers even get a Nobel peace prize.... if it turns out, that the people they kill are eg. Reuters journalists, they punish the leaker and the person who publishes that... there was sam public backlash for wikileaks, but practically zero sanctions from any country against americans killing civilians, even if it was cought on video.
Nato is currently not occupying any european country (unless we count kosovo US base as an occupation), but currently even ours (slovenian) soldiers are in quite a few countries as a part of nato, eg. Syria being one of them.
So yeah... why does Obama get a peace prize for bombing weddings and occupying sovereign countries, and we get expensive gas when putin is saving their minorities in ukraine (atleast this was the narrative when nato bombed serbia)?
Nato is currently not occupying any european country (unless we count kosovo US base as an occupation), but currently even ours (slovenian) soldiers are in quite a few countries as a part of nato, eg. Syria being one of them.
So yeah... why does Obama get a peace prize for bombing weddings and occupying sovereign countries, and we get expensive gas when putin is saving their minorities in ukraine (atleast this was the narrative when nato bombed serbia)?
Ah, much better post, where you actually outline your agenda. Your stance appears to be that because others suffered from war, Ukrainians should suffer too, especially if otherwise it means you have expensive gas. Do I have your position right?
I can't find anything about a NATO deployment to Syria. Can you point me to something? NATO aligned countries in Syria <> NATO deployment in Syria. Like your definition of occupation you continue to blend facts and false claims to push your position. Again that is what is known as propaganda. Stretch the truth (NATO aligned countries in conflicts) to appear to have support for your false claims (NATO occupation/NATO deployments that don't exist).
I have many Russian speaking friends in Ukraine. Before the war they identified themselves as 'Russians from Ukraine'. They were educated at Moscow University, speak Russian not Ukrainian, and carry Ukrainian and Russian passports. They now identify as Ukrainian. They are not being saved. But again you are not above using propaganda. In this case you present a false casus belli (that Russia is saving minorities in Ukraine) to sanitize your position of supporting (or at the least not opposing) Russia's war of aggression because bad things happened in the past and also gas prices.
Yes, the USA sucks. Yes, the USA has done bad things. Yes, Russia's invasion of Ukraine has destabilized oil and food markets. I don't see how any of that justifies that Ukrainian should surrender their right to self determination or should prevent governments choosing to take actions to support Ukraine. You present classic 'What about'ism in order to prevent doing good now because bad has been done in the past. It is a form of propaganda not designed to get people to believe something, but to manipulate them into doing nothing, and leads to nothing but apathy. If you can get the good decent people paralyzed with your what aboutism (because oppressors don't care about past atrocities) only aggressors like Putin benefit because there is less resistance against them. You want to setup a world where aggressors go unchecked because we can't have our gas prices going up and bad things have always happened. That sounds like a horrific world, and one we suffered through in WW2. Should England not have fought in WW2 because they had a horrible record of repressive empire? That seems to be your argument.
I can't find anything about a NATO deployment to Syria. Can you point me to something? NATO aligned countries in Syria <> NATO deployment in Syria. Like your definition of occupation you continue to blend facts and false claims to push your position. Again that is what is known as propaganda. Stretch the truth (NATO aligned countries in conflicts) to appear to have support for your false claims (NATO occupation/NATO deployments that don't exist).
I have many Russian speaking friends in Ukraine. Before the war they identified themselves as 'Russians from Ukraine'. They were educated at Moscow University, speak Russian not Ukrainian, and carry Ukrainian and Russian passports. They now identify as Ukrainian. They are not being saved. But again you are not above using propaganda. In this case you present a false casus belli (that Russia is saving minorities in Ukraine) to sanitize your position of supporting (or at the least not opposing) Russia's war of aggression because bad things happened in the past and also gas prices.
Yes, the USA sucks. Yes, the USA has done bad things. Yes, Russia's invasion of Ukraine has destabilized oil and food markets. I don't see how any of that justifies that Ukrainian should surrender their right to self determination or should prevent governments choosing to take actions to support Ukraine. You present classic 'What about'ism in order to prevent doing good now because bad has been done in the past. It is a form of propaganda not designed to get people to believe something, but to manipulate them into doing nothing, and leads to nothing but apathy. If you can get the good decent people paralyzed with your what aboutism (because oppressors don't care about past atrocities) only aggressors like Putin benefit because there is less resistance against them. You want to setup a world where aggressors go unchecked because we can't have our gas prices going up and bad things have always happened. That sounds like a horrific world, and one we suffered through in WW2. Should England not have fought in WW2 because they had a horrible record of repressive empire? That seems to be your argument.
There are way too many jobs where management doesn't give the front-line worker an appropriate amount of time and/or resources, and when things inevitably go wrong, the front-line worker is blamed, and the problem is studied as if the only factor was the front-line worker.
I saw that regularly as a patent examiner. Examiners aren't given a lot of time, and when a bad patent is issued, tons of ignorant people on the internet start insulting the examiner. They have no idea what the job is like, and I strongly doubt they'd do better than an experienced examiner, even given a lot more time than an examiner gets.
I saw that regularly as a patent examiner. Examiners aren't given a lot of time, and when a bad patent is issued, tons of ignorant people on the internet start insulting the examiner. They have no idea what the job is like, and I strongly doubt they'd do better than an experienced examiner, even given a lot more time than an examiner gets.
Also I think the real estate disaster is one of the main culprits of most 'common people' problems. One cannot afford an early retirement from a taxing job, cos guess what mortgage is a criminal 10-15x their yearly salary..so good luck pensioning before 70...if at all. Here in the UK this has reached absurd levels and nobody in the goverment says a word about it in real (and no, 'easier access to credit' is absolutely not the right answer)... pay 5-6 pounds for a filter coffee and a plain croissant.. cos the tiny shop has to pay 100k / year in rent.... it's just a road to civil war... hopefully soon.
You saw it with Covid.
Trillions of dollars spent on U.S. healthcare, but hospitals are running hyper-efficient, lean staffs, with barely any ability to scale up to meet demand during a crisis.
Trillions of dollars spent on U.S. healthcare, but hospitals are running hyper-efficient, lean staffs, with barely any ability to scale up to meet demand during a crisis.
Wondering out loud - with non-profits, the IRS can enforce that status by forcing them to spend if they have too much money saved. Am I getting this correct?
What about forcing hospitals to spend on staff if they are too profitable?
I’m being purposefully vague to fill in the holes with discussion.
Feel free to throw tomatoes at me if it’s a dumb idea. I’ve had dumber.
What about forcing hospitals to spend on staff if they are too profitable?
I’m being purposefully vague to fill in the holes with discussion.
Feel free to throw tomatoes at me if it’s a dumb idea. I’ve had dumber.
> What about forcing hospitals to spend on staff if they are too profitable?
Why do I suspect we'd see 'hollywood' accounting for medical if this ever were to be a 'thing'?
'Medical accounting' would become such a thing that we'd end up seeing every hospital running in the red all the time, to avoid this sort of thing. Someone would still be bringing in profits, but much much harder to spot.
Why do I suspect we'd see 'hollywood' accounting for medical if this ever were to be a 'thing'?
'Medical accounting' would become such a thing that we'd end up seeing every hospital running in the red all the time, to avoid this sort of thing. Someone would still be bringing in profits, but much much harder to spot.
It's an excellent analogy: The triumph of beancounters turns out to be brittle and costly when, in this case track maintenance, unprofitable but necessary activities and capex are reduced. "It worked fine this quarter!"
I regularly see executives incentivized and rewarded for short term thinking.
I never see executives pay a price for the results of years of short term thinking - they only get punished for failing to meet quarterly targets.
Execs often jump around before the results of their shortsightedness bear fruit.
I dream of a world where the performance of leaders and decision makers is linked with the long term performance of the organizations that they used to manage as well as the one that they currently lead.
I never see executives pay a price for the results of years of short term thinking - they only get punished for failing to meet quarterly targets.
Execs often jump around before the results of their shortsightedness bear fruit.
I dream of a world where the performance of leaders and decision makers is linked with the long term performance of the organizations that they used to manage as well as the one that they currently lead.
> never see executives pay a price for the results of years of short term thinking - they only get punished for failing to meet quarterly targets
Are we watching the same securities filings detailing multi-year stock and cash awards based on long-term stock price and operational metrics?
Are we watching the same securities filings detailing multi-year stock and cash awards based on long-term stock price and operational metrics?
Hyper efficient?
MRI coats me 1500 deductible. Plus whatever they bill insurance. Cash price $750. Is really screwed up.
MRI coats me 1500 deductible. Plus whatever they bill insurance. Cash price $750. Is really screwed up.
The sickest part is the "billed to insurance" value. You get a medical bill that looks like this:
Cost: $1000
Paid by patient: $200
Billed to insurance: $800
Paid by insurance: $150
Remaining to be paid: $0
I get statements that look like this all the time, where the provider "bills" the insurance for $N, but the insurance pays a fraction of it, and apparently that's "good enough".
But when they tell me "that'll be $200 today, please, we take Visa and Discover", I don't have the option to say "actually I'm gonna pay $50 and that's good enough"
Cost: $1000
Paid by patient: $200
Billed to insurance: $800
Paid by insurance: $150
Remaining to be paid: $0
I get statements that look like this all the time, where the provider "bills" the insurance for $N, but the insurance pays a fraction of it, and apparently that's "good enough".
But when they tell me "that'll be $200 today, please, we take Visa and Discover", I don't have the option to say "actually I'm gonna pay $50 and that's good enough"
Hyper efficiency isn't about you, it's for the corporation and, to no small degree, the insurance company.
I'd have to imagine that the amortized cost (millions?) for the MRI machine, it's operation and storage, and the trained personnel isn't free, but obviously much less than you and your insurance pay.
I'd have to imagine that the amortized cost (millions?) for the MRI machine, it's operation and storage, and the trained personnel isn't free, but obviously much less than you and your insurance pay.
Meant that they're only employing the exact number of doctors/nurses to meet their current capacity.
It's great for profitability, the tradeoff being when there's increased demand, it's inflexible.
It's great for profitability, the tradeoff being when there's increased demand, it's inflexible.
That word is being used in a different way in this case. Maybe it's an economic definition of "efficient" but I'm not sure. It means they are spending bare minimum on staff/expenses to achieve whatever goals they have. Like "lean".
Efficient money making machines.
Millions of covid relief dollars sent to states just to be vacuumed up into poorly funded city and state pensions.
I think you are a bit overstating the situation. No matter what's your opinion on how the pandemic was handled, I think it's safe to say that the measures were unprecedented and caused a massive, massive shock in almost every corner of the economy and society in general. That we are still doing...fine (!!) After entire sections of the world's economy were put on hold, on and off for years while other portions were , as you said , overdriven by necessity is a testament to how resilient the US and the world are.
In hindsight, it's tempting to try to frame the recent events as just the logical ans predictable results of a bad system that was slow crumbling anyways... But I just completely disagree that this was just the result of decades of neglect, in no small part because workers were actually doing much better now than they did a decade ago. The pre pandemic times were extremely prosperous all things considered, real wages were actually getting higher, infrastructure was worked on, etc. I wouldn't describe that period as a slow decline, and we were steadily revving down from the "redline" of the early 2000s. Even in my poor home country, that historically has been pretty devoid of opportunities, things were looking really good and people were optimistic.
But then the pandemc hit. And there has been an insanely massive contrast between how, say, an office worker was affected by the pandemic versus how a healthcare worker experienced it. Imo, that obviously lead to unprecedented fatigue and not just physically. Both of my parents are nurses, and I remember them being almost completely burnt out while everyone else was almost enjoying the perks of WFH and not having things to do. But once the decision was taken to lockdown/shutdown what were the options? Food still had to be moved, patients had to be treated, etc.
But again, imo we are still doing surprisingly well and while sinking into doomerism can be tempting, I'm acrually more optimistic now than ever before. Because beyond the culture war, the punditry, the push to divide and the moments that genuinely scared me (like when when normal people started rabidly turning in- and on- their neighbors)... we still kinda made it through?! And we all kind of made that possible, though some more than the others!
In hindsight, it's tempting to try to frame the recent events as just the logical ans predictable results of a bad system that was slow crumbling anyways... But I just completely disagree that this was just the result of decades of neglect, in no small part because workers were actually doing much better now than they did a decade ago. The pre pandemic times were extremely prosperous all things considered, real wages were actually getting higher, infrastructure was worked on, etc. I wouldn't describe that period as a slow decline, and we were steadily revving down from the "redline" of the early 2000s. Even in my poor home country, that historically has been pretty devoid of opportunities, things were looking really good and people were optimistic.
But then the pandemc hit. And there has been an insanely massive contrast between how, say, an office worker was affected by the pandemic versus how a healthcare worker experienced it. Imo, that obviously lead to unprecedented fatigue and not just physically. Both of my parents are nurses, and I remember them being almost completely burnt out while everyone else was almost enjoying the perks of WFH and not having things to do. But once the decision was taken to lockdown/shutdown what were the options? Food still had to be moved, patients had to be treated, etc.
But again, imo we are still doing surprisingly well and while sinking into doomerism can be tempting, I'm acrually more optimistic now than ever before. Because beyond the culture war, the punditry, the push to divide and the moments that genuinely scared me (like when when normal people started rabidly turning in- and on- their neighbors)... we still kinda made it through?! And we all kind of made that possible, though some more than the others!
It's easy to be optimistic when your friends aren't starving and struggling to afford transportation or find work. I'm not talking from a doom-scroll, I'm talking from lived experiences where I'm seeing people drop like flies in a system that is rigged to wring every drop of their energy and time from them for the least amount of compensation.
How many people do you know who work for Wal-Mart? How are they doing right now? How many unemployed people do you know? People who are getting evicted? I know at least 5 and they are all doing terribly. The cost of living has nearly doubled for the poorest among us and wages have barely budged. They can't afford to live close to their jobs because of skyrocketing rents and can't afford cars to drive to work. They have no savings and are a hairs breadth from homelessness which is becoming a bigger target for police.
How many people do you know who work for Wal-Mart? How are they doing right now? How many unemployed people do you know? People who are getting evicted? I know at least 5 and they are all doing terribly. The cost of living has nearly doubled for the poorest among us and wages have barely budged. They can't afford to live close to their jobs because of skyrocketing rents and can't afford cars to drive to work. They have no savings and are a hairs breadth from homelessness which is becoming a bigger target for police.
> developers
> socialized health care, workers rights, mandated vacation time, overtime limits, minimum wages, and UBI are all lightyears away.
do you mean software developers? I don't see why developers need all those. Developers are one of the highest paid people on the whole planet, like top 10% in USA. Most people not in the know think levels.fyi must be fake.
This seems like ridiculous entitlement to expect even more. Why can't they spend their own money to buy the things they are lacking.
> socialized health care, workers rights, mandated vacation time, overtime limits, minimum wages, and UBI are all lightyears away.
do you mean software developers? I don't see why developers need all those. Developers are one of the highest paid people on the whole planet, like top 10% in USA. Most people not in the know think levels.fyi must be fake.
This seems like ridiculous entitlement to expect even more. Why can't they spend their own money to buy the things they are lacking.
I'm sure a lot of enjoy cushy, well-paid, low-stress jobs (myself included) but its not all of us.
Game development is one area that could benefit from these. People in that industry suffer from a lot of stress and high rates of burnout due to overwork. edit: they're also paid significantly less than people working in web-dev.
Game development is one area that could benefit from these. People in that industry suffer from a lot of stress and high rates of burnout due to overwork. edit: they're also paid significantly less than people working in web-dev.
Developer job market is insane now. Why can't they just switch to one of the cushy jobs at an insurance company or something?
You wouldn't ask a teacher or nurse to change careers because their employer or government is treating them poorly.
You'd tell the employer to stop treating people like garbage.
I know this is mostly about developers but not everyone is able to just make a job change like you're suggesting. We should be giving people the things they need to be happy and successful in their current jobs.
You'd tell the employer to stop treating people like garbage.
I know this is mostly about developers but not everyone is able to just make a job change like you're suggesting. We should be giving people the things they need to be happy and successful in their current jobs.
> You wouldn't ask a teacher or nurse to change careers because their employer or government is treating them poorly.
yes i am only talking about software developers.
> not everyone is able to just make a job change like you're suggesting.
why though? Those cushy jobs are dime a dozen everywhere. I don't see why someone is forced to work for a gaming company at low pay.
yes i am only talking about software developers.
> not everyone is able to just make a job change like you're suggesting.
why though? Those cushy jobs are dime a dozen everywhere. I don't see why someone is forced to work for a gaming company at low pay.
It's an employer change, not a career change. And you should definitely leave a bad employer if you are a teacher or a nurse.
Software engineers can buy worker rights, overtime limits, etc? That's news to me. Also, goes without saying, not every engineer is making FAANG-level salaries.
what overtime limits? Its a myth that software developers in usa are working overtime. I've been a developer for last 15 yrs and must have worked overtime < 20 days.
Do you really think developers at banks and insurance companies are working overtime? If they really have problem with overtime at current job they can switch to one of these under the radar jobs at banks.
And yes you can "buy" overtime limits by hiring a nanny, getting catered dinners, hiring a tutor for your kids, hiring a personal trainer ect.
Do you really think developers at banks and insurance companies are working overtime? If they really have problem with overtime at current job they can switch to one of these under the radar jobs at banks.
And yes you can "buy" overtime limits by hiring a nanny, getting catered dinners, hiring a tutor for your kids, hiring a personal trainer ect.
A huge number of teams and companies have 24/7 oncall rotations. While it is still possible to say "I'll never work on a team that has continuous oncall" it is becoming harder and harder.
> A huge number of teams and companies have 24/7 oncall rotations.
Ah yes. Thats true. Not sure how govt regulations can solve this though. Someone has to be on call.
Ah yes. Thats true. Not sure how govt regulations can solve this though. Someone has to be on call.
Businesses can hire more people. They can hire in different time zones. They can simply not have oncall and accept downtime.
It's the same with railroad engineers. Their average salary is just near $100k.
[deleted]
ta8645(3)
Maybe the problem is that the workers are worse, including management and CEO's. The quality of the American workforce is declining. This also puts a burden on unions because qualified and motivated people do not want to unionize with lazy and unproductive people.
I would love to take all your money, put you back to living paycheck to paycheck and see how 'lazy' you get after the daily struggle to house and feed yourself with no way to get ahead and no light at the end of the tunnel.
It's insensitive, out of touch people like you that make it hell to be a front line worker.
It's insensitive, out of touch people like you that make it hell to be a front line worker.
>I would love to take all your money, put you back to living paycheck to paycheck and see how 'lazy' you get after the daily struggle to house and feed yourself with no way to get ahead and no light at the end of the tunnel.
Been. There. Done. That. And now I have an office job.
He's onto something. I can't quite put my finger on it but it seems like a pervasive societal problem at all levels, or at least all levels I've experienced. It's like society has developed some weird way of denying people their agency when it could benefit them but hold them responsible when it is bad for them.
>It's insensitive, out of touch people like you that make it hell to be a front line worker.
It's out of touch. People like you are why it's getting worse and not better.
You tell me how to flip my burgers. You tell me doing it this way is for my own good or it's the efficient way, or it delivers the optimum burger, or whatever. But I can't meet my stupid KPIs doing it the approved way. So I have to do it "wrong". If I fail to meet my KPIs doing it "wrong" I get fired. When I do meet them I don't get anything for it. The best I can hope for is get lucky and not get unlucky long enough to use my "experience" to get some better job. In our effort to make everything consistent, risk free and all those other buzzwords that the MBAs and the clipboard warriors jack each-other off to we've done the opposite, we've made everything reliant on luck instead of skill. In your quest to quantify everything, minimize the bad and maximize the good you've denied everyone any possible upside that could come from putting in any extra effort, owning their work, taking pride in their craft, whatever you want to call it. And this Kafkaesque situation seems to have permeated every industry and every profession. (I dare one of the people who will inevitably take issue with this paragraph to rebut it.)
The parallel to some freight train engineer barreling across some flat state with a train that's too big and too fast who's just hoping it all works out should be obvious.
Been. There. Done. That. And now I have an office job.
He's onto something. I can't quite put my finger on it but it seems like a pervasive societal problem at all levels, or at least all levels I've experienced. It's like society has developed some weird way of denying people their agency when it could benefit them but hold them responsible when it is bad for them.
>It's insensitive, out of touch people like you that make it hell to be a front line worker.
It's out of touch. People like you are why it's getting worse and not better.
You tell me how to flip my burgers. You tell me doing it this way is for my own good or it's the efficient way, or it delivers the optimum burger, or whatever. But I can't meet my stupid KPIs doing it the approved way. So I have to do it "wrong". If I fail to meet my KPIs doing it "wrong" I get fired. When I do meet them I don't get anything for it. The best I can hope for is get lucky and not get unlucky long enough to use my "experience" to get some better job. In our effort to make everything consistent, risk free and all those other buzzwords that the MBAs and the clipboard warriors jack each-other off to we've done the opposite, we've made everything reliant on luck instead of skill. In your quest to quantify everything, minimize the bad and maximize the good you've denied everyone any possible upside that could come from putting in any extra effort, owning their work, taking pride in their craft, whatever you want to call it. And this Kafkaesque situation seems to have permeated every industry and every profession. (I dare one of the people who will inevitably take issue with this paragraph to rebut it.)
The parallel to some freight train engineer barreling across some flat state with a train that's too big and too fast who's just hoping it all works out should be obvious.
You are actually both right.
There are a significant number of workers who are not even trying to better themselves. Some are just lazy, but part of the reason some people are that way is because they see that the game is rigged. A huge percentage of executives spend their time ensuring that they don't get blamed for fired when something goes wrong and ensure the low level employees get the blame.
There are a significant number of workers who are not even trying to better themselves. Some are just lazy, but part of the reason some people are that way is because they see that the game is rigged. A huge percentage of executives spend their time ensuring that they don't get blamed for fired when something goes wrong and ensure the low level employees get the blame.
Why must there be an expectation for every worker to strive to better themselves? Why is it not acceptable for a person to show up to work every day, complete their work, then go home?
In context of the above discussion there is a general idea that fewer people are trying to get better at their job or career, leading to lower quality work as fewer people are trying as hard as before.
I'm not saying those people are wrong for not trying harder or should be trying to meet my expectations, it is their lives to do with what they want.
I'm not saying those people are wrong for not trying harder or should be trying to meet my expectations, it is their lives to do with what they want.
Thank you! Great point!
> It's like society has developed some weird way of denying people their agency when it could benefit them but hold them responsible when it is bad for them.
For every task in corporate America there's a Process that defines how the work should be done. The goals are twofold: increase corporate profit, and reduce corporate risk. Both of these are harmful to the individual. Autonomy and innovation are at best limited, at worst punished. When something goes wrong blame is directed at the individual, who can then easily be fired (the cheapest 'solution'). Process benefits the individual worker only to the extent to which it can clearly be shown to increase profits and reduce risk.
And, to your point, it's nearly impossible to meet the expected KPIs unless you find a creative alternative to the approved Process, or simply work your fingers and mind to the bone in order to keep up.
For every task in corporate America there's a Process that defines how the work should be done. The goals are twofold: increase corporate profit, and reduce corporate risk. Both of these are harmful to the individual. Autonomy and innovation are at best limited, at worst punished. When something goes wrong blame is directed at the individual, who can then easily be fired (the cheapest 'solution'). Process benefits the individual worker only to the extent to which it can clearly be shown to increase profits and reduce risk.
And, to your point, it's nearly impossible to meet the expected KPIs unless you find a creative alternative to the approved Process, or simply work your fingers and mind to the bone in order to keep up.
Okay, let's buy into the idea that across the board, workers are worse than workers of the past, for whatever definition of worse you like.
In what way is this a tractable problem? Like, what solution is there that wouldn't involve massively importing workers from other societies where workers aren't worse?
In what way is this a tractable problem? Like, what solution is there that wouldn't involve massively importing workers from other societies where workers aren't worse?
> what solution is there that wouldn't involve massively importing workers from other societies where workers aren't worse?
Yes. (Not agreeing workforce degradation is the biggest problem. But opening spigots on skilled immigration would help.)
Yes. (Not agreeing workforce degradation is the biggest problem. But opening spigots on skilled immigration would help.)
Getting a bit off topic here, but I agree it's fully fixable with policy changes.
I'm not disagreeing that it feels like the workers are getting fed up, leaving and putting in less effort. It's why, and you can't blame them for feeling exasperated.
I mean I fully support increasing immigration. More tax revenue, more growth, everybody wins.
I'm not disagreeing that it feels like the workers are getting fed up, leaving and putting in less effort. It's why, and you can't blame them for feeling exasperated.
I mean I fully support increasing immigration. More tax revenue, more growth, everybody wins.
The workers are the same. The situations they find themselves in are different. People phone it in because that's what we incentivize.
The workers ARE worse. But not because this generation or that generation doesn't have the correct moral philosophy or some such nonsense. It's because in general, employers are not training or maintaining a competent work force. Instead they spend all their energy on exploiting existing talent to the fullest before they burn out.
No training is creating new work force and terrible working conditions are destroying the existing hard core of competent workers.
No training is creating new work force and terrible working conditions are destroying the existing hard core of competent workers.
What's with the early 20th / late 19th century style of English? Entertaining for a moment, but ultimately just frustrating for me to read. Is it done purposely because trains are an "old" piece of transportation infrastructure?
It didn't read like a Twitter 37/355 thread, but it didn't sound a bit old-fashioned to me — unless reasonably formal English is hopelessly out-of-date now.
I get the feeling the person that wrote it is not of the generation many here are.
I really enjoyed the style personally (millennial...).
I really enjoyed the style personally (millennial...).
Hmm, funny how as a non-native speaker, it didn't strike me as having a particularly notable style.
Yes the style is overly complex. It distract from the message.
It feel like the opposite of a PG essay.
It feel like the opposite of a PG essay.
All that's sticking out to me is a lack of contractions and overly formal or dramatic text, but probably because it's written as a letter to someone.
The writer may himself be far from young.
It is mentioned that this letter was commentary in a hearing with the CEOs of BNSF, CSX, Norfolk Southern and Union Pacific. I imagine they wanted to use a more formal style to address these business leaders.
[deleted]
orangepurple(3)
While I don't disagree with anything mentioned here, it reads a little like Atlas Shrugged fanfiction
Huh. People who find themselves abused and at risk on a job, walking away from the job, is now "Atlas Shrugged fanfiction"? I'll be sure to notify all the labor unions of their new patron.
Have you read Atlas Shrugged? In the end it talks about how the corporations that weren't run ethically ended up failing (literally rail operators) and they were having issues keeping their lines maintained and engineers employed. I didn't mean it derogatorily, so many people hate on Ayn Rand I just get an automatic downvote.
Came to say this. When life imitates art.
The good thing about this particular problem is that it will be corrected by the market mechanic regardless of what the government does. Companies have to compete for labor now - the landscape has changed. Some will not adapt and they'll go out of business. That's not to say that we shouldn't also explore policy action, but when workers have the upper hand it's probably best to let the market just figure it out, and then come in with policy after that.
Why do you think the workers have the upper hand? If anything, this letter sounds like workers have no recourse other than to find other employment.
Based on historical trends, I suspect relying purely on the market mechanics will result in business failure, and then the policy action will be to save (bail out) the rail companies that are too big to fail. This will then lead to a bunch of strict controls so that bail outs never occur again, creating a regulatory moat further blocking future competition without significantly changing the corporate culture that led to the issue in the first place.
Instead, an up-front regulatory limitation that prevents short term profiteering over long term sustainability seems required.
How many trillionaires need to be minted on the backs of the population majority before significant regulatory limitations sound palatable? I guess I just don't understand the free market concept. It's like... sure it works great assuming you don't factor in the chaos components like greed, limitless ambition, explosive population growth, limited resources, natural disasters, international politics, etc etc etc etc etc.
Based on historical trends, I suspect relying purely on the market mechanics will result in business failure, and then the policy action will be to save (bail out) the rail companies that are too big to fail. This will then lead to a bunch of strict controls so that bail outs never occur again, creating a regulatory moat further blocking future competition without significantly changing the corporate culture that led to the issue in the first place.
Instead, an up-front regulatory limitation that prevents short term profiteering over long term sustainability seems required.
How many trillionaires need to be minted on the backs of the population majority before significant regulatory limitations sound palatable? I guess I just don't understand the free market concept. It's like... sure it works great assuming you don't factor in the chaos components like greed, limitless ambition, explosive population growth, limited resources, natural disasters, international politics, etc etc etc etc etc.
> Why do you think the workers have the upper hand? If anything, this letter sounds like workers have no recourse other than to find other employment.
Well yea. I'm not sure what the issue is there. Right now almost every company in America is struggling to attract workers and they're being forced to raise wages, increase benefits, move to 4-day work weeks, etc. Everyone is impatient. They want changes now but these things take time to evolve. It's much better for companies and people to organize democratically and organically - that's a fundamental principle for me, and then if those organizations in the long run are trending toward a negative outcome, that's when we need government to step in. Right now I see trends moving the right way, so I'm reluctant to support adding government intervention just to speed things up. It's a cost and inefficiency. I support government intervention and regulation, but it has to be used as a reluctant tool for great good. Environmental regulations, for example, are fantastic and I wholly support them. Mandatory 4-day work weeks when we are already trending in that direction doesn't seem like a good use of regulatory resources.
> Based on historical trends, I suspect relying purely on the market mechanics will result in business failure, and then the policy action will be to save (bail out) the rail companies that are too big to fail. This will then lead to a bunch of strict controls so that bail outs never occur again, creating a regulatory moat further blocking future competition without significantly changing the corporate culture that led to the issue in the first place.
The correct thing to do is not to implement policy action here and let the businesses fail. That's the missing piece. Too Big to Fail is a government failure, not a market failure.
> How many trillionaires need to be minted on the backs of the population majority before significant regulatory limitations sound palatable? I guess I just don't understand the free market concept. It's like... sure it works great assuming you don't factor in the chaos components like greed, limitless ambition, explosive population growth, limited resources, natural disasters, international politics, etc etc etc etc etc.
I really, really can't stand this type of mentality. It makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. Poor government in, say, America doesn't change the success of capitalism - ask Sweden and Denmark, for example. Both countries are staunch free-market capitalist economies. You're mistaking government failures for market failures. You should be asking why your government is not curbing excessive population growth, not Pepsi or Google.
Well yea. I'm not sure what the issue is there. Right now almost every company in America is struggling to attract workers and they're being forced to raise wages, increase benefits, move to 4-day work weeks, etc. Everyone is impatient. They want changes now but these things take time to evolve. It's much better for companies and people to organize democratically and organically - that's a fundamental principle for me, and then if those organizations in the long run are trending toward a negative outcome, that's when we need government to step in. Right now I see trends moving the right way, so I'm reluctant to support adding government intervention just to speed things up. It's a cost and inefficiency. I support government intervention and regulation, but it has to be used as a reluctant tool for great good. Environmental regulations, for example, are fantastic and I wholly support them. Mandatory 4-day work weeks when we are already trending in that direction doesn't seem like a good use of regulatory resources.
> Based on historical trends, I suspect relying purely on the market mechanics will result in business failure, and then the policy action will be to save (bail out) the rail companies that are too big to fail. This will then lead to a bunch of strict controls so that bail outs never occur again, creating a regulatory moat further blocking future competition without significantly changing the corporate culture that led to the issue in the first place.
The correct thing to do is not to implement policy action here and let the businesses fail. That's the missing piece. Too Big to Fail is a government failure, not a market failure.
> How many trillionaires need to be minted on the backs of the population majority before significant regulatory limitations sound palatable? I guess I just don't understand the free market concept. It's like... sure it works great assuming you don't factor in the chaos components like greed, limitless ambition, explosive population growth, limited resources, natural disasters, international politics, etc etc etc etc etc.
I really, really can't stand this type of mentality. It makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. Poor government in, say, America doesn't change the success of capitalism - ask Sweden and Denmark, for example. Both countries are staunch free-market capitalist economies. You're mistaking government failures for market failures. You should be asking why your government is not curbing excessive population growth, not Pepsi or Google.
I'm not trying to change your mind so hopefully this comes off as supportive and interesting.
Issues can rarely be broken into a clean dichotomy of correct and incorrect. Math formulas have correct and incorrect answers, but socioeconomic issues lay on a foundation of unpredictable and unforeseeable chaos. No matter the control mechanism created, it cannot account for every variable. And I believe on that we agree. The divergence seems to be in what to do once that basis has been accepted.
The regulated market approach seems to be to legislate and regulate to prevent the known worst-case scenarios. The free-market approach seems to be to accept that chaos is unpredictable and to build a support structure that empowers success. This whole paragraph is necessarily reductive, but hopefully it's respectfully so.
But again, I don't claim to understand free market. Quite the opposite! I don't know how you could say there's a "correct" action to take when my understanding of the free market is to just let things play out. Clearly, I'm missing something.
I also don't know how one could rightfully compare the socioeconomic situation of Sweden and Denmark to the USA without blatantly ignoring significant historical events that led to the current situation. Sweden is a variable pointing to an object in memory that has a wildly different behavior pattern than the object behind the USA pointer. Just because they implement many of the same interfaces does not mean that they implement all of the same interfaces. They also use vastly different amounts of system resources, and are used very differently by other objects.
Issues can rarely be broken into a clean dichotomy of correct and incorrect. Math formulas have correct and incorrect answers, but socioeconomic issues lay on a foundation of unpredictable and unforeseeable chaos. No matter the control mechanism created, it cannot account for every variable. And I believe on that we agree. The divergence seems to be in what to do once that basis has been accepted.
The regulated market approach seems to be to legislate and regulate to prevent the known worst-case scenarios. The free-market approach seems to be to accept that chaos is unpredictable and to build a support structure that empowers success. This whole paragraph is necessarily reductive, but hopefully it's respectfully so.
But again, I don't claim to understand free market. Quite the opposite! I don't know how you could say there's a "correct" action to take when my understanding of the free market is to just let things play out. Clearly, I'm missing something.
I also don't know how one could rightfully compare the socioeconomic situation of Sweden and Denmark to the USA without blatantly ignoring significant historical events that led to the current situation. Sweden is a variable pointing to an object in memory that has a wildly different behavior pattern than the object behind the USA pointer. Just because they implement many of the same interfaces does not mean that they implement all of the same interfaces. They also use vastly different amounts of system resources, and are used very differently by other objects.
Perhaps, but this doesn't give much to the people in Lac-Megantic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaste...
The letter describes undisturbed market forces increasing this problem. Unless something changes, there's no reason to expect market equilibrium points to change.
> it will be corrected by the market mechanic ... it's probably best to let the market just figure it out
What evidence do you have for that? Let me guess: none, whatsoever. Just a religious belief in Adam Smith' invisible hand.
What evidence do you have for that? Let me guess: none, whatsoever. Just a religious belief in Adam Smith' invisible hand.
The market did figure it out. The status quo is what it settled on.
There were a lot of systems in place to monitor rolling stock:
- Wheel Impact Detectors
- Hotbox detectors
- Acoustic bearing detectors
- Truck performance detectors
To name just a few. There were also efforts to monitor the railway infrastructure. The things I remember:
- Rail stress management (rails need to be under the right amount of stress, which of course varies with temperature)
- Top of rail friction management
- Rail profile management (the name eludes me, but the idea is you want the interface between the rail and wheel to meet certain parameters)
I worked on the rolling stock side measuring wheel impacts, overloads, imbalances, and a handful of more esoteric metrics. One of the outputs of these measurements was a train consist. For each of our locations we were able to build up the consist of the entire train (which was a fun CS problem in itself).
I stared at a lot of consists over the years. In North America I never saw anything longer than about 100 cars and 2-4 locos. However, in Northwest Australia they routinely ran 300 car trains meeting the description in this article. But, the reason they could get away with that is they were running a straight shot from the heart of the Pilbara to one of the port towns on the north west shoulder (Karratha and Port Hedland).
I need to check in with my old colleagues and see if things have changed. It wouldn't surprise me if train lengths have gotten longer, but I would be surprised if this correlated with a large increase in derailments, as that would have a tremendous impact on average network speed and thus profit.
As someone mentioned elsewhere on this thread, there are a lot of single track corridors. It's bad enough when one train has to sidetrack. It's really bad when a train takes out the whole corridor. These aren't packet switched networks. It's not easy to reroute. And it's really expensive and difficult to lay new rail.