 |
Re: OPPRMS post and more on PTC
Author: OPRRMS
Date: 06-04-2012 - 13:48
Re: Average Joe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ANd, good response, OPPRMS: shows just how
> convouluted the aggreements have become due to
> issues on both sides of the table. What about the
> idea put forward by many about running a scheduled
> railroad and simplifying the agreements?
Good point. Many parts of the various agreements are outdated and need a reality check. But that's been happening. Most of the TE&Y agreements - particularly the system ones - are much more simple than they were when I first started here, way back in the Dark Ages. For example, many mileage agreements have been replaced by Trip Rates - from an employee standpoint they're either great or terrible, dependeing on the specific circumstance. But they're an excellent cost-cutting tool for the carriers. Or look at RCL. The railroads think it's great because it eliminates the cost of an engineer, even though the actual costs of operation increase. DPU allows the railroads to run longer, heavier trains, which lowers their labor costs.
A "scheduled railroad" seems to work fine in some scenarios, but in my opinion would be difficult to achieve on larger properties such as a UP or BNSF, because the bigger the railroad the harder it is to maintain a schedule.
-------------------------------------------------------
> ANd, good response, OPPRMS: shows just how
> convouluted the aggreements have become due to
> issues on both sides of the table. What about the
> idea put forward by many about running a scheduled
> railroad and simplifying the agreements?
Good point. Many parts of the various agreements are outdated and need a reality check. But that's been happening. Most of the TE&Y agreements - particularly the system ones - are much more simple than they were when I first started here, way back in the Dark Ages. For example, many mileage agreements have been replaced by Trip Rates - from an employee standpoint they're either great or terrible, dependeing on the specific circumstance. But they're an excellent cost-cutting tool for the carriers. Or look at RCL. The railroads think it's great because it eliminates the cost of an engineer, even though the actual costs of operation increase. DPU allows the railroads to run longer, heavier trains, which lowers their labor costs.
A "scheduled railroad" seems to work fine in some scenarios, but in my opinion would be difficult to achieve on larger properties such as a UP or BNSF, because the bigger the railroad the harder it is to maintain a schedule.
