Post EHH Changes for CSX

Discussion of the operations of CSX Transportation, from 1980 to the present. Official site can be found here: CSXT.COM.

Moderator: MBTA F40PH-2C 1050

Post Reply
Engineer Spike
Posts: 1891
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 3:24 pm

Post EHH Changes for CSX

Post by Engineer Spike » Wed Dec 20, 2017 1:16 pm

First, I would like to say that I feel locking the EHH thread was very unnecessary. Mr. Norman started it, and had been doing a good job of critiquing the negative and positive points, of the EHH CSX management. He has a reputation of raising some good discussion. It was matter of fact, mature, and objective.

Yesterday, I saw an article about what may come next. Unfortunately, note of the source was not made. The main point was whether the successor may set the company up for a merger. The author pointed out the plus and minus points of merging with CPR, UP, BNSF, and KCS. I don’t recall mentioning CN, but I feel that it may be a valid partner too.

I know that many parallel routes, from the component roads has widely been rationalized. This poses the question, what else can be combined? Is there much waste left to cut? Perhaps now that things have been torn down, it is time to build it back up. That seems to be the phase CPR is in now. I’m no CSX expert, and would like to know what you feel is in store.

Backshophoss
Posts: 6117
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:58 pm

Re: Post EHH Changes for CSX

Post by Backshophoss » Thu Dec 21, 2017 7:09 pm

Hopefully after Mr Foote settles into the "seat" EHH vacated,he will rethink the Wholesale changes that EHH was trying to do,
and return to a more sane course for the RR and the Corporation as a whole.
The Land of Enchantment is not Flyover country!

Engineer Spike
Posts: 1891
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 3:24 pm

Re: Post EHH Changes for CSX

Post by Engineer Spike » Thu Dec 21, 2017 8:04 pm

I agree with putting things back in perspective. The market has been up lately. This should be a signal to expand, rather than cut. CSX should be putting itself in a position to capture this opportunity.

BNSF is still paying for cuts which Hunter made while VP Operations BN. One good example is the NP. I have a friend who hired out on MRL about a year ago. He already has significant seniority. Much of this is due to the number of BNSF haulage trains. Apparently, even with oil boom improvements, the GN route is saturated.

This history lesson should be taken by CSX officials, who seem doomed to repeat it.

ccutler
Posts: 871
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:17 pm

Re: Post EHH Changes for CSX

Post by ccutler » Fri Dec 22, 2017 8:40 am

Since Mr. Foote's background is on the marketing side, hopefully Foote will have greater recognition of the importance of quality and reliable service. Longer term, shippers will plan to avoid relying on CSX service and relocate, if they see sudden and unannounced disruptions to their switching services or car routings like the ones EHH had implemented. EHH may have had a good plan if it were stretched over a few years and more carefully and professionally implemented. Instead, he managed to chase away CSX's top management and did severe damage to an already-challenged railroad.

Let's hope for the best.

User avatar
Wayside
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2017 9:00 am
Location: The First State

Re: Post EHH Changes for CSX

Post by Wayside » Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:29 pm

I saw something somwhere today about CSX signalling they want to reopen negotiations with the other parties in the Howard St. tunnel clearance project.
We don't know what we don't know.

roberttosh
Posts: 997
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 7:21 pm

Re: Post EHH Changes for CSX

Post by roberttosh » Fri Dec 22, 2017 2:03 pm

This is a no-brainer for CSX. While all the PR has been geared towards DS access to the port of Baltimore, the real benefit to CSX is full DS clearance on the I-95 corridor from central FL all the way to New England. I believe there's still another much smaller obstacle near Philly that needs to be addressed, but with the new VA ave tunnel now in service, Howard St is the last major hurdle. I suspect that CSX will be able to increase their IM business along this corridor significantly with full DS economics.

ekt8750
Posts: 713
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 11:30 pm

Re: Post EHH Changes for CSX

Post by ekt8750 » Sat Dec 23, 2017 5:03 pm

roberttosh wrote:This is a no-brainer for CSX. While all the PR has been geared towards DS access to the port of Baltimore, the real benefit to CSX is full DS clearance on the I-95 corridor from central FL all the way to New England. I believe there's still another much smaller obstacle near Philly that needs to be addressed,
You're thinking of Boone Tunnel in Darby, PA. There are long term plans to dredge it so it can clear double stacks. I believe this was a combined project with the state (they also contributed funds for the DS clearance project on the Trenton Sub). There's also some even longer term plans to connect the Feltonville siding with the double track that starts in Darby but that's way down the line.

ccutler
Posts: 871
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:17 pm

Re: Post EHH Changes for CSX

Post by ccutler » Sat Dec 23, 2017 5:25 pm

Conversely the line up to Philadelphia is capacity constrained one track and double stacks from the SE can be rerouted up through Ohio. So EHH may have had a point, though I would still take the government money and have the project

Engineer Spike
Posts: 1891
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 3:24 pm

Re: Post EHH Changes for CSX

Post by Engineer Spike » Sat Dec 23, 2017 6:36 pm

Running via Ohio my be OK for shipments from the west, but from the south it would be a long way around. Do you mean that they would have to go via the old NYC?

mmi16
Posts: 1006
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 5:18 pm
Location: USA

Re: Post EHH Changes for CSX

Post by mmi16 » Sat Dec 23, 2017 6:38 pm

ccutler wrote:Conversely the line up to Philadelphia is capacity constrained one track and double stacks from the SE can be rerouted up through Ohio. So EHH may have had a point, though I would still take the government money and have the project
The decisions EHH was making were indicative of someone who's brain was being deprived of oxygen - erratic.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!

roberttosh
Posts: 997
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 7:21 pm

Re: Post EHH Changes for CSX

Post by roberttosh » Sat Dec 23, 2017 7:31 pm

ccutler wrote:Conversely the line up to Philadelphia is capacity constrained one track and double stacks from the SE can be rerouted up through Ohio. So EHH may have had a point, though I would still take the government money and have the project
I don't have the exact mileage but Jax to North Jersey via the I-95 corridor has to be several hundred miles (like 500) shorter than going via Atlanta, Cincy and Cleveland, which is also mainly single track and hilly to boot. Would be a lot harder to compete with NS and the truckers going that way for sure....

mmi16
Posts: 1006
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 5:18 pm
Location: USA

Re: Post EHH Changes for CSX

Post by mmi16 » Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:57 pm

ccutler wrote:Conversely the line up to Philadelphia is capacity constrained one track and double stacks from the SE can be rerouted up through Ohio. So EHH may have had a point, though I would still take the government money and have the project
The Philadelphia Sub was a double track railroad until the B&O ended passenger service to New York in April 1958. The right of way still exists and could be rebuilt to double track standards if the volumes warrant; such as was done with the track between Sherwood, OH to Pine Jct., IN when CSX acquired it's portion of ConRail.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!

roberttosh
Posts: 997
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 7:21 pm

Re: Post EHH Changes for CSX

Post by roberttosh » Sun Dec 24, 2017 9:40 am

Keep in mind that they can pretty much double their IM volumes without adding any additional or lengthening any existing trains just by having the ability to stack a second container on top of the singles their handling now. That's the beauty of double stacks.

Leo_Ames
Posts: 585
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:52 pm

Re: Post EHH Changes for CSX

Post by Leo_Ames » Fri Jan 05, 2018 5:21 am

One post EHH change, while already in the works before his demise, is the elimination of all EMD 710 engined power.

The SD60 family have just been retired en masse, the SD80MAC's went even before Harrison entered the picture, the SD70ACe's are now all gone, and the SD70M's and remaining SD70MAC's are on the hit list and may not see 2018 out.

Haven't heard of the three GP60's being at risk, but CSX isn't going to stock 710 parts just for three oddballs. With the C40-8W's leaving quickly (The entire group of former Conrail units just went, with further mass retirements planned for 2018), CSX looks set to soon be the first US/Canadian Class 1 to not own a single Dash 8 or EMD with a 710 engine under the hood.

It will all be Dash 9/AC4400CW's and newer GE's on road freights, with 4 and 6 axle 1970's era EMD's holding down the other assignments (The SD50's are threatened, but not long ago were considered a solid platform with rebuilds underway, so a reprieve may happen there with Hunter out of the picture).

Matt Langworthy
Posts: 3381
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 8:02 pm
Location: Rochester, NY

Re: Post EHH Changes for CSX

Post by Matt Langworthy » Mon Jan 08, 2018 1:28 pm

Backshophoss wrote:Hopefully after Mr Foote settles into the "seat" EHH vacated,he will rethink the Wholesale changes that EHH was trying to do, and return to a more sane course for the RR and the Corporation as a whole.
It's a nice idea... but I don't think that will happen. EHH wasn't operating in a vacuum. He had the support of the majority of shareholders and the board itself -they were onboard with the cuts to crews, equipment and physical plant to enhance profits. They aren't likely to change that philosophy now. On top of that, Foote was EHH's lackey anyway. Aside from a few tweaks, including renewal of the tunnel project, he'll stay the course with EHH's practices.

Mind you, I am a CSX shareholder who does NOT like the current style of management. It is only good for enhancing profits short term, maybe a few years at most. At some point, CSX will have to reinvest in equipment and physical plant... which hurt profits and the stock price. The cuts to crews and customers happening now will make the recovery process more difficult. Sadly, Foote and those of EHH's mindset don't care. They'll be gone by the time comes to pick up the pieces.
Matt Langworthy

"It is highly likely that the 1990s were an overrated decade."

Post Reply

Return to “CSX Transportation”