C.R. England "pushes efficiency

Triple stacks, the containers are here now ...

But requires rail bridge and tunnel upgrades.

 

Anyone see any railroad construction going on? New tracks, new infrastructure? NOPE.

 

I am quite fine at math. I simply did not understand the means they used to calculate the turnover. I understand now. I was looking at it as a solid 100% being every driver they hire they fire concept. No big deal. Thanks everyone for explaining it. I now understand the turnover for all companies, lol.

 

england is getting into the RR business now?

 

That isn't good business sense for a Big truck truckin' company that depends on a high turnover rate to survive economically. Right now, wannaBees are a dime a dozen, and there are more newBees than empty Big truck driver's seats.

As The In & Out Doors Revolve.
Cha-ChinG!!! $$$
NexT in Line, --- SteP Up.
Show me the money. $$$

If not for employees, who would relocate the freight, logistically, Chester's sons?
I guess they could run team in a leased Big truck.
Question is, do they have the work ethics to git-er-dun?

"More efficient" has been known to take a back seat to
More Profit. The two most common reasons more efficient ways are implemented is if doin' so increases the numbers on the bottom line, aka profit. Or the government imposes a mandate or law forcing a change and imposes heavy fines for non-compliance, which would affect profit.

When thangs don't seem to make sense
Follow the Money Trail.

The greater majority of businesses are IN business for only ONE reason, Money/Profit.
Show me the money.
Gimmie more, more, more.

Yes, it does, as a general rule.
The way truckin' companies were set up prior to the economy goin' south, (and some are still set up that way), after fuel, their biggest expense was recruiting/driver retention. But that was a time when the truckin' company recruiters had to seek and sign new drivers to hire, luring them with perks and better pay. Now-a-daze, there's a glut of applicants seeking the job, more so out of desperation than desire, with few, if any, perks, and lower pay.

C.R. England, as well as some of the other truckin' companies, have modified their approach to the ultimate goal, --- keepin' their doors open and revolving. By concentrating heavily on taking advantage of training wannaBees, companies profit from what they charge to train, which can include a bonus from the government for hiring folks who are out of work. If trainees wash out early, they still owe the company for their training.

As an added bonus for the company, while employed as a company driver, newBees are moving the freight cheaper than an experienced driver, saving the company more money. $$$
About the time newBees are due for a raise in pay, they're so fed up that they quit, thereby providing a needed empty seat for the next newBee to keep warm. $$$

C.R.E. pushes newBees into their lease adventure, where very few actually succeed. Those who wash out early and turn their leased truck in often wind up owing the company money.$$$ The company turns around and leases the turned in lease trucks to another starry eyed newBee, and the cycle begins again. $$$ If anyone manages to complete their lease and utilizes the pay-off option of purchasing the truck they've been leasing, they wind up paying 40 to 50 thousand dollars more than the same truck could be had for from a dealer. $$$ C.R.E. is believed to be involved with the leasing company. $$$

Running lease trucks saves the company a whole bunch of money and headaches, as the responsibility of maintaining those trucks becomes that of the leased driver, $$$ who is led to believe that leasing is the road to riches, which isn't entirely untrue. The riches the road leads to is the door to C.R.E.'s bank. $$$

Shipping containers by rail is a good idea, and should prove to be more efficient. For years the Big truck truckin' industry and the railroads have been at odds with each other. A joining of the two should be productive for both, and more efficient, although at a cost to Big truck truck drivin' jobs. Freight that isn't time sensitive could go by rail. A cross country run of 3,000 miles would most likely be less expensive than rolling on 18 wheels, all costs considered.

When y'all are sittin' at a railroad crossing, waitin' for the train to go by, count the number of containers and semi-trailers being hauled. That's the number of Big trucks that are taken off the road, and a like number of Big truck truck drivers as well.
A plus for the truckin' companies, a minus for those who drive 'em. $0, $0, $0. Although, more local Big truck truck drivers would probably be required to pick up and deliver those containers and semi-trailers to their destination, and back to the rail yards, some reloaded, some empty, they would be concentrated around larger cities, exacerbating the traffic congestion situation that already exists. Which probably isn't of great concern to the truckin' companies,---- until the government steps in with more mandates and laws forcing them to be concerned.

YuP!

That's true.
Runnin' containers out of the rail yards is no picnic.
In the larger cities, it's constant, predictably unpredictable heavy traffic to contend with, elevating stress levels for those drivers.

Actually, C.R.E. is one of the worst when it comes to driver treatment, pay and working conditions. But when it comes to pioneering innovative ways to make bank, albeit at the expense of their drivers, C.R.E. seems to excel.

I hear/read comments about how C.R.E. is run by jerks who don't know how to run a truckin' company.
Not so.
They know exactly what they're doin'.
However, the jury is still out on whether they're jerks, .... or not.

 

While sitting at a railroad crossings i have noticed more and more trucking companies names on the cars. The majority that I have seen in this area has been JB Hunt.

 

J.B. Hunt is publicly traded on Wall Street, --- investors purchase stocks in the company. Rumor has it that a major investor is none other than Burlington Northern/Santa Fe railroad.
That probably accounts for the switch from an almost entirely over-the-road operation to what it is today, --- handlin' mostly rail containers.

 

The first is a given. Most of those folks, (businesses), are driven more by the act of believing they too can provide a service, albeit a better one, and have the control that proprietor has vs an employee.

Making a profit is a "given"... one needs to show one in order to stay in business. How many of us here are employed, or will be for long, with a company that is not showing a profit?

Starting & having your own business takes sacrifice. Most, including their families have gone without in many ways, worked like dogs just to save and scrimp money together just to get off the ground. This does not include the efforts given by these individuals after beginning this venture as "The Boss."

There is nothing wrong in making a profit or "more, more, more." There is a HUGE difference in merely a 'Profit' and a 'Profit Margin'.

Most companies survive off the slimmest of profit margins to begin with after the bills, taxes, insurance, employee's, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc are paid. This number is anywhere from 3-7%. So in essence for every $100 bucks they spend/generate, they're only getting a $3 - $7 dollar return. I'll guess most O/O, small fleets, & large companies are getting by on LESS of a margin. Look at how many went bust in the last two years.
The larger companies just have more cash flow to shuffle around in feeling the depths of any potential profit/loss.