I enjoyed the Trains article on Mr Harrison and the changes he has made at CN. All in all a very balanced article although I wish people who have negative things to say would be brave enough to go on the record. A shipper says CN is impossible to work with… that’s a damning statement…and if whoever said it believes it to be true then he/she should reveal himself/herself and be prepared to defend that statement. Moreover, hiding behind a cloak of anonymity detracts from the statement. Same with Glassdoor.com…or whatever it is called…have something negative to say then show who you are and be prepared to defend what you say…calling someone a thief without provding any kind of details is assinine and cowardly.
The article has one person stating that we’re afraid of Hunter…why? Does he breathe fire? Good grief…the worst he can do is send you packing…
Overall I believe that Hunter and his team have done a fine job and that Hunter has a legacy he can be proud of. However, CN does need to step back from its fixation with the OR and look at other more important benchmarks. For example…customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction is the truest indicator of any business’s success, and everything flows from that…especially ongoing profitability. OR on the other hand… is just a number which may, in the worst case, be pointing out how much should be but is NOT being put back in plant upkeep.
I couldn’t help but notice that there was no mention of how the “operating efficiencies” led to some of the derailments and other “accidents” the CN has had in the last few years.
Not that I expected Hunter to admit to that problem, but the author of the article could hardly be ignorant of the above-mentioned incidents.
Railroads are steeped in tradition: this is the way we’ve always done it syndrome. Hard to change 175 year old procedures and thinking. But when it does happen, it usually works for the better. What really has me concerned is the arrogance that “this is my product and here is how I will deliver it to you” ignores American business custom of “the customer is always right”. Yes, you’ve got to orgainze yourself to delever the best product at the best price, but you also have to bend somewhat to customer needs and demands. Likewise, customers have had a field day demanding and getting what they want rarely having to pay the consequences of higher prices or whatever. Hunter is right, “this is how my product works for you and this is what it costs”. The message has to be absorbed by the industry that that is who they have to be to succeed in the future…and the customers have to see and accept the way it best serves thier interests. If there is no meeting of the minds, then there is no business and the guy in the next business gets the business!
That’s true…but “the customers is always right” is one of those bromides that gets passed down through the generations without anyone really thinking about it much. Customers are people after all…and people are never always right. But it does have alot to do with the presentation…CN probably CAN improve the entire shipping process via intense asset utilization however they do need to get the buy in from their customers and they do need to sell their customers on the advantages of change over the status quo… Just using the carrot and stick approach to smooth out the ebb and flow of the shipping cycle does not come across the right way. CN and their larger accounts need to sit down and go over the potential pros and cons of going to a seven day shipping cycle…a big plus for CN may not be a big plus for the shipper when all is said and done. At the end of the day one size does not fit all…they will find that their seven day cycle works well for some but not at all for others. And instead of penalizing the ones who don’t fit the mold…maybe look at alternatives. I view any account to pays me a fair rate and who pays me on time as a GOOD account. Everything else is up to me…if the shipper doesn’t like my way of doing things or if he needs something that I can’t provide then that’s my problem to fix…but not by trying to force a square peg into a round hole.
Customer satisfaction is down, morale is the worst it has ever been. Oh yes, Hunter is a “great” man.
His cost cutting killed more than a few employees. Remember the bridge collapse in McBride, BC? What about the runaway at Lillooet? Caused by he and his minions trying to squeeze every penny out of the assets.
The infrastructure is falling apart, CN will not maintain anything until it breaks, often in the case of track and bridges, catastrophically. Locomotives and rolling stock aren’t much better. Crews turn in locomotives for safety or mechanical defects and are threatened with disciplinary action for delaying the assignment because CN doesn’t make any money if the locomotives are in for repairs.
I can understand sweating the assets, but he’s pushed them to the breaking point.
He has instilled a culture of fear and intimidation, his management teams consist of psychopaths, nitwits, and yesmen. Running trade employees are being fired for sneezing the wrong way yet the Boom Boom Boychuck(responsible for the Lillooet runaway and the disaster at Prince George) gets a promotion.
I have absolutely zero respect for the man and I know many who would not brake if they saw him crossing the street.
It’s the truth. Customer satisfaction is a term rarely heard on the CNR. And if you don’t believe me I will put you in touch with some of the local customers. Any customer that is not shipping more than 20 cars a day, CN will refuse to switch them. The Ainsworth mill in Lillooet is scrambling to find alternative transportation because CN has told them “either give us 20 cars a day, or we won’t switch you.”
A co-worker of mine recently came forward to talk about how badly CN treats its employees on one of these websites. Someone from CN saw his posting and for the next 3 months supervisors were constantly tailing this person, who was an excellent railroader, trying to find something, anything to fire him for.
Managers at CN are hired from McDonalds and Starbucks and don’t have a clue how to run a railroad. They have no clue as to the operating rules and employees have been fired for insubordination because they will not break an operating rule. In formal company investigations after an accident or for any reason that management has pulled you in for a hearing, any evidence that can incriminate you is front and centre, in the evidence package that is given to you. However any evidence that could exhonorate you is surprisingly missing. It’s to the point now that many employees have a personal recording device to record any conversation with a supervisor.
Speaking on behalf of those with mouths to feed, student loans to pay off, and a mortgage to pay, in a recession no less, HUH?!? “The worst he can do is send you packing” as a reason for not being afraid of him?
I would be FAR less scared of someone who breathes fire.
Well the good news then is that there’s change coming at the top. According to Trains the new man has strengths that Hunter does not have ( and vice versa I’m sure)…
Sounds like a really productive use of supervisory personnel and their costs . . . [:-^]
Perhaps that’s why Hunter requires that everyone at CN become qualified as conductors and engineers, if I understood that part of the article correctly . . . . I hadn’t heard or read that before - despite having followed CN and owned its stock for over 10 years now - maybe it’s because that’s the only way to get them trained [Q]
How is it going with the investigations, and the union representation [Q] Is the turnover that much higher than any other similar railroad - say, CP, BNSF, or UP [Q] Are these being appealed to arbitrators or the courts - not sure how you do that in Canada - and who is winning most of the time [Q] If this is too far out of line, why hasn’t the union called a walkout
I don’t think anyone can argue with the fact that Hunter is a very capable railroader…however his “tough as nails” bull in a china shop management style often doesn’t work because the end result is fear (which staff readily enough admit to) and fear of course breeds anxiety and anger. Unfortunately, as is so often the case…his greatest strength may also be his greatest weakness. His tough managment style is what got him promoted right along at CN and at other roads…but has worked against him as a leader at CN where a more concilliatory tone with staff and customers might have been more effective. Nonetheless…I won’t take anything away from him…he’s had quite a run from his start as a carman at Frisco.
Subjective claims are hard to evaluate, but objective, quanitifiable matters - ‘metrics’ - usually seem more believable. So - Do the usual statistics -other than the ‘Operating Ratio’ [‘OR’] - shed any light on this [Q] lSuch as - M/W Ratio, work done each year - number of ties replaced, miles of rail laid, and miles of track surfaced, etc., lost-time injuries per 100 or 200,000 hours, fatalities per year, wreck damage per year, loco availability percentage, average age of the loco fleet, car bad-order ratio, etc.
I could look them up, but I’m busy with some other things right now. Right off the top of my head, I believe that 2007 was a pretty lousy year for employee injuries and deaths on CN. Was that part of a trend - or a fluke, a one-time spike, an ‘outlier’ in the data [Q] Has CN ever taken home any of the Harriman Safety Awards in the last 15 or 20 years [Q]
Yes, I know well that statistics can lie - for examples, deferring bridge maintenance takes a long time to show up, and even then can be so sporadic and different in how it shows up as to seem random to the casual and uninformed observer. But deferr
You’re absolutely right, of course. I think there’s the misperception out there that journalists like using anonymous sources. My preference is always to get on-the-record comment whenever possible.
However, I’m sure you can also appreciate why a rail shipper or employee would be reluctant to talk on the record about this kind of stuff. Not specific to CN, as it’s certainly not my place to cast aspersions on them, but I think most employees would be fearful of talking on the record and saying negative things about his employer, and same with a rail shipper toward his railroad. In cases like these, background reporting is often the only way to get the story. Your choice is basically, anonymous sources, or no sources at all.
When a journalist uses a background source like Fred did, he’s asking his readers to place some trust in him. There have certainly been journalists through the years that have abused that privilege. However, being a longtime fan of Fred’s writing, my opinion is that his request for our indulgence is well-placed. But I guess it’s up to each reader to agree or disagree, and I wouldn’t deign to tell you or anybody else what your interpretation should be.
For the most part, I like what CN has been able to do with the former IC/ICG Iowa Division and making it look like something again although I am disappointed that they haven’t pushed for a paired track arrangement with UP between Denison and Council Bluffs AND pushed the Council Bluffs/Omaha gateway harder; particularly for auto and auto parts traffic.
Great response Mr Cummings…and I too am a fan of Fred’s writing. I don’t fault Fred or Trains…however I’m more critical of those folks who make very serious negative comments. I appreciate that Trains and other news media must use discretion when revealing sources. My view is that if I can’t sign my name to it then I don’t say it (or I say direct to the offending party for his/her ears only)…
Regarding the use of unidentified ‘sources’ in the Hunter Harrison article -
Frailey’s got the background and ‘street credibility’ as a working journalist outside of Trains magazine to make it believable - to me, at least - that he needed to use those sources without attribution, or he wouldn’t be able to get their comments.
It’s interesting to me that people who are protected by a contract - and a union - are manifestly afraid or at least concerned about speaking against Harrison and/ or CN ‘on the record’. Their actions in requiring anonymity speak loudly that they are genuinely concerned - you can decide whether that’s rational or not, or they are over-reacting, paranoid, etc.
At the shipper level, it’s even more interesting, and curious. All rail shippers are large corporations [no ‘Mon ‘n’ Pop’ grocery stores have sidings]. As such, they are ‘big boys’ - have lobbyists, are accustomed to the rough ‘n’ tumble of the business world and the customary frictions with politicians and consumers, etc. Neither the businesses nor their important officials can be afraid of taking a stand - publicly, if they have to - and some even seem to relish ‘pulling the tiger’s tail’ from time to time. Yet here even that supposedly tough crowd seems cowed and muted compared to their usual willingness - nay, enthusiasm - to gripe about a railroad - which usually bounces off it anyway. So I have to ask why is that dynamic different here - ‘Why isn’t that dog barking [Q]’ - and what does that mean [Q]
I don’t get it either… I’ve never had a problem getting people to open up about their problems to my face. Maybe because I’ve encouraged that…and strongly discouraged the other kind. Straighforward pointed discussion can be useful…is often very humbling…and at the end of the day the person who “unloaded” feels heard…
When a strong character causes significant change, it tends to polarize the constituency into those who will be elated and those who will be dismayed. As humans, we tend to place little stock in supporters, thinking them biased, and we tend to look more to cues that provide us with important information about hazards that could cause us trouble. We tend to sympathize with, and to pay more attention…and credence…to those who give the appearance of caution, of being cynical, and somehow aloof from the hubris spouted by the supporters.
IOW, we’ll gladly believe what we wish to about an organization or a person, and lend much more weight to information that bolsters our pre-conceived notions. Also, many of us can’t stand it when someone powerful succeeds, even if it isn’t necessarily at our expense.
His cost cutting killed more than a few employees. Remember the bridge collapse in McBride, BC? What about the runaway at Lillooet? Caused by he and his minions trying to squeeze every penny out of the assets.
I assume you meant the accident of 29 June 2006. I reviewed the report and I do not find any blood on Harrison’s hands. According to my reading, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada was never able to pin this accident on any specific cause. They noted that the air brakes on the one car in the train did not appear to have operated properly. However, the car’s control valve did operate properly in testing. Inspection noted metal shavings inside the control valve. These shavings “could” have caused the control valve to malfunction. This was a condition that was present created when the control valve was manufactured and not something that CNR was responsible for.
When BCR ran this railroad only units equipped with dynamic brakes were used on this run. When CNR took over the DB units were pulled and a non-DB unit was assigned. DB is great; however, railroads have succesfully operated mountain grade without DB for years. In any event I really doubt it was Harrison who actually pulled the DB units off the mountain.
I would like to quote from the report:
The investigation learned that some railway operating employees were concerned about GP 40-2L locomotives being able to safely perform in the same manner as DB-equipped locomotives that were formerly assigned to the Exeter Switcher. These concerns were not communicated to management either formally or informally for their review and response. Furthermore, they were not reported to the local OSH Committee because th
OK - but what’s ‘The rest of the story’ here - at what rate, and on what terms, is CN refusing to switch for less traffic than 20 cars a day per shipper [Q]
If it’s at a market rate - yeah, then we’d have to wonder what CN is thinking. Or, did the mill negotiate a more favorable multi-car rate based on ‘20 or more cars tendered at one time’ [Q] And now, with the economy as it is of course, the mill is finding that it can’t live up to that end of its deal - but the mill still wants the benefit of the lower rate, naturally enough [Q] Or, did CN agree to send out a local -‘patrol’ - to make individual switches of the mills at certain times of the day, but only if the mills guaranteed a 20-car minimum shipment to make it worth CN’s while to call the crew, incur the engine start, and tie up the main line’s other traffic with the local, etc. [Q] Or maybe none of the above - the mill is the wronged innocent, and CN is the black knight. But we need more data - and both sides [or more] of the story - to evaluate all that for ourselves.
Allow me to emphasize a slightly different portion of the report quoted above;
‘These concerns were not communicated to management either formally or informally for their review and response.’
On the other hand - the management should not - and should not have to - depend on the rank-and-file to tell them when something is being or is about to be done wrong - that’s why they’re the managers. ‘This ain’t rocket science here, people’. Imagine the dialogue that somebody should have had -
‘Well, we’ve got this here steep grade that’s been run with dynamic brake-equipped locomotives for the past so-many years. What d’ya say - why don’t I take the DB units away from the crews, and give them much less-capable units instead [Q]’
What were they thinking [Q] [or not] What part of that makes any sense [Q] Somebody should have some explaining to do - not only the person who made the loco change, but at least his immediate supervisor, too - for failing to properly train and instruct the subordinate.