ONE plan

I'll addess this to CSX Conductor and other CSX T+E employees: Any comments on the ONE plan? I know it hasn't hit Selkirk yet, but the "jump start" in the last few weeks seems to have gotten velocity up and yard dwells down. Hope the momentum lasts after the auto plants come back on line. Until then, enjoy the overtime!

If you're going to use this forum to discuss it, please tell us what the ONE Plan actually is. Thanks.

it's another waste of company $$ through use of extra paper and extra postage.

if the powers-at be would worry about running trains and maintaining quality service to all customers, big and small...........this place would be alot better...............instead they spend extra money on trying to learn how to save money!!!!

Our terminal runs fine without anybody from Jacksonville trying to help. The crews communicate with one another and we get the job done, maybe not within managements "projected budget goals".........but unlike the head honchos, we try our best to keep the local business.

Lately if there is no power for a job or no crew available, they just lay the job in, and dont care about the customers who are effected that day.....not even an attempt to inform the customers that they will not get a switch.................they like it that way, because every day they can annul a local, they look at it as saving money, but at the same time, we look at it as a bad practice, which might eventually drive the customers away.

instead of spending money on Super Bowl tickets, and paying off executives to leave the company, how about putting some of those $$$ toward fixing some track around here before someone gets hurt, or much worse, killed.

Cowford wrote:Any comments on the ONE plan?

CSX Conductor wrote:it's another waste of company $$ through use of extra paper and extra postage.

I wonder if that was the expected response....

LCJ wrote:....please tell us what the ONE Plan actually is. Thanks.

LCJ, not that the reply was entirely unexpected, but disappointing. CSX Conductor's brethren do such a good job in running trains up in the Northeast that they run through grade crossings in defiance of written orders, couple up to the incorrect intermodal cuts and head to NYC with Boston-bound traffic, cause rear end collisions, conduct work slowdowns for no GOOD reason... shall I continue? Let me take a slightly higher road than Conductor and say that the majority of T+E workers out there are safety conscious and do their best under difficult conditions. But being in the field and saying that JAX is the root of all evil is off-base and uninformed. Tell you what, Conductor, come down to the ivory tower and teach us the logic behind deciding whether to buy 20 or 40 locomotives at a couple million apiece... hint- you don't just pick a number out of your butt. And how about crew hiring in light of guaranteed spare boards and uncertain traffic trends? I digress...

In short, the ONE plan is a based on a reevaluation of the railroad's "batch network," that is loose car freight (anything [except auto traffic] not running in unit train service). A consulting company is applying advanced software to create a network-wide service plan that focuses on concentrating sorting work at CSX's primary hump yards. The last network plan was designed quite a few years ago- changing traffic patterns and meddling have caused it to simply break down. Plan execution was started at Avon (Indianapolis) in June; it is being rolled out east and south this month. The full effects won't be seen for quite a few months. NS used the same process (Thoroughbred Operating Plan) a few years ago, and it helped them immensely.

Cowford wrote:A consulting company is applying advanced software to create a network-wide service plan that focuses on concentrating sorting work at CSX's primary hump yards.

Does this include application of Six Sigma analysis/optimization to the system? It just seems to me that railcar switching/routing/scheduling has been crying out for such an application -- and isn't this a key reason CSX went into Six Sigma in such a serious way? (To optimize systems and drive out the wasteful variability and error -- optimizing the ultimate result of very happy customers that want to keep paying for the service, and maybe even increase business/revenue levels.)

Mostly in the past, the main approach was predominately a manual "let's try it this way, oops, that's not quite right, let's change that part" scenario, without the benefit of honest-to-goodness statistical analysis. Correct me if I'm wrong about that.

Or has Six Sigma, alas, been pushed aside because it didn't yield immediate returns, (or because the immediate cost-cutters once again gained the upper hand) -- much like many other initiatives of past years? I really don't mean to be cynical about it. I'm truly interested. Congestion is the emergant enemy, but the ultimate goal needs to be a bit more lofty and customer focused, I would think.

And -- aside -- attacking frontliners tit-for-tat doesn't help your cause, as I see it. Bridging the great divide is a huge obstacle for 500 Water St., again from my perspective -- an outside view though it might be. Modern, enlightened managers have learned not to blame people, but rather to fix the systems that produce the undesirable results.

Here's how GE interprets the CSX strategy:
http://www.ge.com/annual01/stories/bsmith.html

i don’t see how any railroad freight operation can achieve six sigma goals...

there are just too many variables

it’s all fine and dandy in the customer service and manufacturing world, where all the variables of production are within the company's control.

But that is just not the case with railroads

there are too many legislated and mandated safety rules, lack of efficiency due to costs of physical plant (track infrastructure and maintenance) and the recent trend of management trying to get rid of as much labor as possible (RCO's, reduced crew size, etc, outsourcing of MOW/maintenance work)

Santa Fe and Conrail's brief TQM experiments showed that these type of initiatives that work (or work to some degree) in the business and manufacturing world just don’t in rr's...

having worked in an organization that went through six sigma certification in the last couple of years, I can tell you that these initiatives really do not reap the productivity gains that were hoped

all it really does is make money for consultants and management in charge of these ventures (bonuses)

LCJ - First of all, you're right. the blame game doesn't go anywhere... but keep in mind that "the systems" that need focus and fixing include current labor rules. Class 1s continue to shed less profitable lines in large part because of inflexible and onerous work rules. T+E employees deserve fair pay and a respectful, safe working environment. I don't know of many times the unions came out and supported improvements to the system unless it showed up in their wallets or in job protection (firemen, cabooses, RCL technology)... it can be argued that this is the union role. But as long as that is the case, then there's a conflict of interest with the unions out for themselves and the company out for the shareholders (which is not greed but a fiduciary responsibility).

Back to the ONE plan... I don't believe that six-sigma is being used extensively in the planning process. Six sigma and other quality/consistency programs often fall short of expected results at companies where the processes are put in place because they are in vogue. The purpose of six-sigma process is not necessarily to have trains arrive on-time 99.996% of the time... it is used as a tool for root cause analysis and developing better processes and controls to maintain improvement. I'll withhold comment on what I think of such programs.

First off, this kind of stuff does NOT belong on a railfan discussion thread.
I retired from the railroad over six years ago and at this stage, I am
receiving my RR retirement and don't care about any more double talk
and propaganda from someone.
Cowford, I do not know who you really are and I guess at this point, it
really does not matter. I assume from your posts that you are connected
with CSX management. Before I go any farther, I was on good terms
with nearly all of management with Conrail, Metro-North and my other
previous companies. I have friends still in management or retired from
management with all of the above and have utmost respect for them.
The entry about the crew that had the unfortunate incident on the West
Shore outside of Rochester hits a very raw nerve with me. I worked with
the conductor involved in that incident a number of times and he was a
good man to work with and a good railroader. I fault much of this accident with CSX management for 1. Not repairing the problem that
existed at that particular crossing and 2. Sending a train down in there
knowing full well that there was a problem at that crossing.
What could CSX have done to prevent that accident, well for one thing
they could have had a police office or a maintainer on the scene if it was
absolutely necessary to run train train down the shore to protect that
crossing.
I do not know what your background is but I have to wonder if you have
had any experience with heavy freight trains on a main line railroad?
To put the blame simply on a two man crew is unjustified. There is plenty
of blame to go around in this case.
CSX had enough money to pay John Snow a fortune when he left but does
not have enough money to pay a signal maintainer to take proper care of
the railroad nor to pay a railroad police officer to properly protect its
property.
There are plenty of problems with CSX, I witnessed a few of them when I
was up north last year. At least in Selkirk, it is not the same railroad that
it was when CSX took over from Conrail.
Many a time in the GYO at Selkirk or in Buffalo, they were in more of a
rush to get us on the train than to give us the proper paper work. More
than once, we got paperwork for TV-14 or TV-10 for the train from the
day before. More than once, the paperwork on the train coming in from
the west was not in good order either. Just get the train moving, that is
all that we care about.
I think there is enough blame to go around so far as the TV-80 incident is
concerned too.
Again, I would prefer not to bring up labor vs management situations here, it is really not the place for it but I won't run from it either. There
are still a lot of people in Selkirk whom I have worked with and they were
good railroaders too.
I don't know if you were around when Penn-Central went kaput but I was
and I hope I do not ever witness that again. I have heard nightmare
stores that the railroad is not being properly maintained, there are too
many slow orders due to neglect. With Conrail, the slow orders were
fixed or they existed because of track improvements in the first place.
Once the Penn-Central neglect was fixed up, Conrail realized the importance of keeping things in a good state of repair, engines too were
generally not bad.
I think I have said enough about this, peace to all.
Noel Weaver

crazy_nip wrote:Santa Fe and Conrail's brief TQM experiments showed that these type of initiatives that work (or work to some degree) in the business and manufacturing world just don’t in rr's...

Having been part of the quality effort for Conrail for several years, I have to agree with the outcomes you portray in your post. However, that same internal perspective let me see that the company never really did much in the way of quality management -- unless someone like Ford was holding a gun to their heads to improve service quality. Beyond that it was an internal joke -- and a disappointment to many in the company like myself who really cared to make things work better but had no support from the senior managers that mattered the most (operations).

But -- that does not prove that quality initiatives cannot work for railroads. Quality initiatives that are not taken seriously do not work for railroads -- or for any organization for that matter. Too many variables? You figure out which ones you can control, and you work the processes to get them in control. Not easy, I agree -- but still possible if you know what you're doing. (Or if you hired the right consultant!)

Cowford wrote:The purpose of six-sigma process is not necessarily to have trains arrive on-time 99.996% of the time... it is used as a tool for root cause analysis and developing better processes and controls to maintain improvement.

The complaint I've heard most often from customers of this kind of business is a lack of consistent service. They say, "Give me something I can depend upon, so I can run my business intelligently and efficiently."

Six Sigma is applicable to any system, and can improve the results. Any system in which managers change processes without a good solid statistical analysis will get worse instead of better. Yeah, it's easier to do this with manufacturing, but I repeat, I think it's something that needs attention. I'm sure GE would say it can work this way.

Yes, union work rules are part of the system. So are the day-to-day decisons made by operations managers that are not based on valid process data, but on the latest occurances of events. Then, every day, things get more and more out of control. Operating plans are assembled, and promptly altered at the first difficulty or blip in the data -- usually because someone is afraid to take the risk of staying with the plan (or the plan is no good to begin with).

Whenever I hear a manager say that things can't get any better, they usually turn out to be right. If one doesn't believe something is possible, it ends up being impossible. Funny how that works.

Anyway -- Mr. Weaver has valid points about good people who are placed in situations where they have to make choices about the safest or best course to follow -- and sometimes there are too many variables beyond their control, allowing bad things to happen.

It isn't just Jacksonville, I apologize, it is also some of the local management that worries about their "budget" more than their customers.

As far as defying orders/ rules...........not all of us do that up here, it is just like anywhere else, a few bad apples create stereotypes for all in the one craft or area etc.

As far as recent screw-ups around Selkirk...........the latest rear-end collision was an unfortunate result of fatigue....I agree that we all need to do our best to prevent this from happening in the future, but we are humans, not machines. as for Q110 and Q168 taking the wrong cars.....I never could understand how neither crew noticed the mistakes....I'll admit, that was probably lack of double checking car numbers.....and axle counts on paper-work versus axle counts announced on detectors.

Hey Noel, did you see the new GYO @ Selkirk? Talk about treating grown-up's like little kids........... camera's at every angle and 2-way microphones.......so the Hump trainmaster can listn to us ad watch us every minute that we are in there.

No thanks, guess you have to go back to doing what we used to do when
we were little bitty kids in school, whisper and pass notes. Ah what an
atmosphere to work in. Next thing will be voice recorders on the engines
so they can hear you talking about them.
I have a couple of engineer friends with Amtrak who were considering
flowing to CSX and working Selkirk - Buffalo. Both of them have loads of
seniority. I advised both of them not to do it and I don't think either of
them will. I also know of one good engineer who left CSX for Amtrak,
CSX's loss. Hope they are hiring.
The future as I see it could well result in a significant increase in freight
business, I do not think CSX is or will be prepared to handle it.
Glad I don't own any stock in the company.
Noel Weaver
PS What ever happens in the future, don't ever let them take you out of
the Railroad Retirement System.

CSX Conductor - you hit on a good point related to LCJ's comments about "systems." Local operating managers should be reviewed not just by budgets,but also by service performance, e.g., customer switches missed, on-time train departures, even customer satisfaction. Good crews shouldn't be treated like children. How you keep the "bad apples" in line is a big question, though.

One thing: Local crews (labor and management) that do right by the customer are a pretty powerful selling tool for the company. Especially when you all go above and beyond to resolve a service issue.

One more thing (sorry!): The one thing that everyone can agree on is that the railroad ain't gonna survive if service doesn't improve. If voices in the field aren't heard individually, how 'bout forming a union-based service improvement suggestion team to go along with the ONE plan... one that focuses on getting the job done right. Am I being naive?

Cowford wrote:One thing: Local crews (labor and management) that do right by the customer are a pretty powerful selling tool for the company. Especially when you all go above and beyond to resolve a service issue.

Yes! CSX should have a way for mid- to upper-management to notice this much more often and communicate the fact that they've noticed and appreciate it to those who are doing it. That's how you demonstrate what you really value. That's how you get more of it! And -- that's where salvation lies for the company, in my humble opinion. If it's to happen, the people will make it so.

Cowford wrote:One more thing (sorry!): The one thing that everyone can agree on is that the railroad ain't gonna survive if service doesn't improve. If voices in the field aren't heard individually, how 'bout forming a union-based service improvement suggestion team to go along with the ONE plan... one that focuses on getting the job done right. Am I being naive?

Not naive at all. It's a great idea -- that will require follow-through and consistent support. Conrail's Labor-Management Committees started out that way, with the express blessing of Crane and Hagen -- but the process was not supported systematically and people became disillusioned over the years. Local managers saw it as a excuse for labor to spend money, and labor wouldn't allow meaningful input from management -- a no win situation.

The problem in trying it again is that people won't trust that the company really means it this time.

Meaningful dialog like this is so much better that throwing rocks at each other -- don't you agree?