newpylong wrote:You're noting every reason in the book outside of the most obvious. Take it from someone who used to work for, and is still heavily in tune with this railroad, Pan Am is it's own worst enemy, not trucks, or the economy. The Mills have been CRYING for better service for years. There are some that only move a 1/4 of their traffic via rail but would like to see it much higher, past 50%. Pan Am has never had the infrastructure to make that happen. I use the Mills for example because they are the largest provider of carloads, but there are many other customers who have offered to PAY for a dedicated switcher all day. WTE aka Kramers is one example, and that's 1/2 mile from Deerfield.
There is no excuse to still be short crewed. People are out there crying for jobs that would kill for a shot at $20-30/hr, even with all of the RR BS attached.
I fault the ones writing the checks more than the people int he trenches. Sometimes you have to make difficult decisions with not a lot to work with, and that is what the GM on down have to do here. For instance, right now there is no functioning production tamper in District 3. For real? How can you run a RR like that...
So far Mellon shown little interest in spending their own money. Despite the positive steps made recently (with a large influx of foreign cash), the industry would be better off if he sold.
Despite your association with the company, unfortunately, you have it backwards about what is driving things. The market and economics majorly drive the environment and decision-making, even for Pan Am, despite your anecdotes. Why would anyone refuse to take advantage of any situation if it truly offered benefit? Sure, like any human endeavor you can point to this or that not making sense, but, at the meaningful core it's not the small things that really count. What an emotional point of view that does not take into account the complete view of those looking at the entire system fails to see, is that it's about long-term sustainability: something can't just generate carloads --- it has to make money over the long-run that will allow reinvestment in the business. And, for railroads it is particularly crucial because it takes a lot of investment in motive power, cars, and infrastructure that has to earn the returns worthy of making them there instead of someplace else.
So, for a power-hungry system you take away power to sit at a customer with an opportunity cost that you will have to go get another piece of equipment (not to mention additional employees)--- surely someone has looked at the numbers and said it doesn't make sense. Similarly, if there is potential for new paper traffic, I am sure someone has done the math within Pan Am's reality and determined that they can't justify whatever investment is necessary in the example you cite. Lastly, those additional employees don't just cost $20-30/hour...try doubling it with benefits...and rail traffic has peaks and valleys in a cost-driven environment so railroads manage their labor forces intensively and are seldom willing to have anything more than a small buffer. This is amplified for Pan Am and Pan Am Southern in it's current construct given the tough environment in which to make sufficient money and returns over the long-run.
Sure, there's no doubt that there's been an element to Guilford's management that has a tough and rough edge, but, business leaders lead by hard objective facts and self-interest, and, I think Guilford/Pan Am has for the most part been no different, like it or not. I've seen and had to deal with the same dynamic as Guilford/Pan Am in many phases of my own career, like it or not, but, taken objectively, for the most part it is not the leaders' emotions, but, instead their response to the markets in which they operate and economics and environment of the business that determine the essential important core of their decisions.