![]() |
|
| To respond to this month's Editorial, send comments to: Editorial | |
| Splitting the switch by John Sipple | |
| The attached photo was taken by me in British Columbia and shows a loaded center beam flat trying to go down two diverging tracks. Apparently the switch had some problems, and it diverted the second truck in a different direction from the first. The train operator was actually on the ground, running the locomotives by radio control; had he been up on the locos, he probably wouldn’t have gotten the train stopped before something broke or went on the ground. It is entirely to his credit he stopped it when he did; a foot farther would have been just too much. We’ve all had this happen on our model railroads, and it can be rather amusing when it takes place. Model freight cars, with 360 degree rotation of their freight trucks and truck-mounted couplers, can actually wind up going quite a distance on two parallel tracks. Generally, nothing breaks and if the train goes on the ground, a large hand puts it right in a hurry. |
![]() |
| With real railroads, this could have seen the load of lumber dumped all over the right-of-way, the car on the ground with broken running and coupling gear, and several angry managers in pickup trucks at the scene yelling and waving their hands. Instead, the locos were reversed and the train was pulled forward, reuniting this car onto one track. The fellow on the front boxcar has inspected the coupling system before allowing this move, and he’s wisely up and away from something suddenly letting go. He judged that all was well, and the move was completed with another rail worker closely monitoring the switch. My guess is that MOW was later called down to do some repairs so this wouldn’t happen again. In a way, however, this photo illustrates a problem for North America’s largest railroad. While this photo wasn’t taken on Union Pacific (they don’t operate in Canada), that freight car has a problem similar to the railroad. One truck represents the railroad itself, the hard rock and cold steel, freight-hauling, Fortune 500 enterprise. This is the one with eight thousand locomotives, 32,000 route miles, 50,000 employees, 107,000 freight cars, and operates in 23 states. Current president and CEO Jim Young has not only saved the railroad from its third close brush with catastrophe when it was so short on train crews the railroad nearly collapsed, he also has improved the safety record while increasing profitability. The railroad hasn’t solved all of its problems by a long shot, but as with the first truck of the photo above, it’s on the right track. The second truck on the railcar in the picture is on the wrong track. It represents the other side of railroading, the one with fancy ads, clever sayings, big money grants to colleges, excursion programs, and museums, all under the general banner of “corporate relations.” When this works well, the world thinks the hard rock and cold steel is not only competent, but has a heart and soul as well. When it goes wrong, it tangles the public relations resources in a clumsy web that doesn’t really deceive anyone. As with the trucks on our pictured freight car, these two parts of the railroad are at some distance from one another. The hard-rock railroad is spread out all over 23 states and is only connected to the other railroad by the executive suite and the law offices. Sometime back around 2002, the Corporate Relations department of Union Pacific split the switch and angled onto the wrong track. After generations of generally positive and useful relations with the model and hobby communities, it suddenly emerged with visions of licensing sugarplums dancing in its wee little head. “Union Pacific” was going to be a household name, like Old Navy or GAP. People would buy everything from T-shirts to china with the Union Pacific trademark emblazoned on it. In order to have any chance of seizing this cash cow, first of all they would have to stop anyone from using the trademarks for free. That’s when the trouble began. Not only did some of the model railroaders and train hobby manufacturers not go along quietly, some of them preferred to litigate. This forced the licensing program to dip into the legal resources of the railroad. While I have no official numbers, many industry wags have suggested that UP has already spent over three million dollars on litigation while making a fraction of that from the program. This is purely a guess on my part, but a look at the legal expenses invested in actions against Athearn, Lionel, Mike’s Train House, Steamscenes, and countless others seems to suggest numbers in that range. At this writing, Lionel has come to an agreement with UP while Steamscenes and MTH suits are not settled, and so the meter is still running. The envisioned flood of UP-branded merchandise hasn’t appeared at Macy’s, Bon Marche, or any of the other icons of high style. No one is doing music videos wearing a UP shirt, and Tommy Lee doesn’t have a tattoo with “Building America” on his body. To me, the sure sign the railroad was not making any money on the program (and had come to accept that it never would) came when they announced that all profits from the licensing program will be diverted into the historic excursion programs in the future. At this point, UP officials are silent about how much money will be transferred to excursions as a result. Meanwhile, this corporate relations madness is on a track that will never parallel that of the railroad, so if it isn’t stopped, something is going to break or go on the ground. At some point, this circus of the absurd will interfere with the real railroad. Mr. Young has his hand on the remote control, and it’s time for him to halt the licensing program right in its tracks. Enough. It was tried, it didn’t work, and the grand residue is a mountain of litigation. To achieve a settlement with the remaining litigants, UP will have to eat some legal crow but that feast will only grow as time passes. It’s time to get the whole railroad on the right track. And maybe MOW should be called to be sure this doesn’t happen again. |
|
| To respond to this month's Editorial, send comments to: Editorial | |
| Home • About MRN • Advertise • Contact Us • Moving? • Subscribe • Trial Subscription | |