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
NRGeep
Posts: 1060
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 9:33 pm

Re: Post EHH Changes for CSX

Post by NRGeep » Thu May 02, 2019 9:37 am

QB 52.32 wrote:
mmi16 wrote:Cost reductions come from deferring maintenance - you can get by for a while with deferred maintenance, then the house comes crashing down.
This year, 2019, CSX is replacing ~21% more rail than NS, 39% more rail than BNSF, and 44% more rail than UP, and, replacing 9% more ties than NS, 100% more ties than BNSF, and 26% more ties than UP, proportional to each carrier's route mileage. CSX reported 1Q2019 FRA Train Accident Rate down 35% vs. 1Q2018. Of the 31% of operating ratio improvement last quarter, cost reductions came from fuel, labor and equipment rental with the rest, 69%, coming from pulling in more revenue.
Sources please?

Safetee
Posts: 298
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 8:07 am

Re: Post EHH Changes for CSX

Post by Safetee » Thu May 02, 2019 9:54 am

According to the carriers NS has 19,500 route miles and CSX has 21,000 route miles. so, csx has approximately 10% more route miles

According to Progressive Railroading NS will spend 973 mill on mow in 2019 and CSX will spend 820 million. Which is to say that NS will spend 153 mill more than csx on mow this year

I will leave it to the math majors to empirically determine who is planning to spend more per route mile.

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

Re: Post EHH Changes for CSX

Post by mmi16 » Thu May 02, 2019 9:56 pm

Safetee wrote:According to the carriers NS has 19,500 route miles and CSX has 21,000 route miles. so, csx has approximately 10% more route miles

According to Progressive Railroading NS will spend 973 mill on mow in 2019 and CSX will spend 820 million. Which is to say that NS will spend 153 mill more than csx on mow this year

I will leave it to the math majors to empirically determine who is planning to spend more per route mile.
Before EHH and PSR - CSX was investing between $1.2B and $1.5B yearly on CapEx.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!

QB 52.32
Posts: 734
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 8:05 am

Re: Post EHH Changes for CSX

Post by QB 52.32 » Fri May 03, 2019 6:18 am

NRGeep wrote:Sources please?
Readily and publically-available information provided by each carrier.
mmi16 wrote:
Safetee wrote:According to the carriers NS has 19,500 route miles and CSX has 21,000 route miles. so, csx has approximately 10% more route miles

According to Progressive Railroading NS will spend 973 mill on mow in 2019 and CSX will spend 820 million. Which is to say that NS will spend 153 mill more than csx on mow this year

I will leave it to the math majors to empirically determine who is planning to spend more per route mile.
Before EHH and PSR - CSX was investing between $1.2B and $1.5B yearly on CapEx.
Way too early to call in the math majors: you only got part of the way there...you have to look at what makes up a carrier's capital expenditure program as it has many components beyond what would indicate whether a carrier is "deferring maintenance", the most recent charge against post-EHH CSX. Same goes for pre-EHH CSX.

XBNSFer
Posts: 117
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 9:56 pm
Location: Bridgeport, CT

Re: Post EHH Changes for CSX

Post by XBNSFer » Sat Jul 06, 2019 1:36 pm

rr503 wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 2:27 am
Take UP and BNSF. BNSF has been growing strongly for a while; UP not so much, despite their superior route structure.
I can't help but be a bit puzzled by this remark; I would certainly say that, relative to BNSF, UP does not have a "superior route structure" on the main east/west corridors of Chicago - California and Chicago - Pacific Northwest. BNSF's routes to both are shorter. Were you talking about other parts of the systems?
GE, not EMD, makes the best locomotives now; has for over 20 years. Get over it.

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

Re: Post EHH Changes for CSX

Post by roberttosh » Sun Jul 07, 2019 10:57 am

UP has better routes along the I-10 corridor from CA to the Southeast, from Chicago and St Louis to the Gulf Coast, TX and Mexico and along the I-5 corridor. Chicago to Nor Cal and PNW is close to a push I’m guessing while BNSF definitely has the advantage from LA to Chicago. Overall it would seem to me that UP has the better route structure.

rr503
Posts: 686
Joined: Sat May 02, 2015 4:13 pm
Location: North by Northwest

Re: Post EHH Changes for CSX

Post by rr503 » Tue Jul 16, 2019 8:59 am

UP also hits SLC, Vegas, hits Denver better, has a really strong Bay Area network, a real central corridor, etc.

QB 52.32
Posts: 734
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 8:05 am

Re: Post EHH Changes for CSX

Post by QB 52.32 » Sat Jul 27, 2019 12:26 pm

2Q2019 CSX operating ratio 57.4% vs. 58.6% 2Q2018 gained through cost reductions mainly from fuel (13%) and labor (3%) cost reductions though offset by 1% revenue decline with 4% net volume decline driven by 10% intermodal volume decline mitigated by merchandise volume, unit revenue (traffic mix, fuel surcharges, and rate increases) and overall revenue increases vs. NS 2Q219 operating ratio 63.6% vs. 65% 2Q2018 gained through equal cost reduction driven by fuel (7%) cost reduction and income gains from unit revenue (traffic mix, fuel surcharges, and rate increases) growth offset by a 4% net volume reduction.

6MO2019 CSX operating ratio 58.4% vs. 61.1% 6MO2108 gained through 60% cost reduction, 20% unit revenue growth and 20% volume growth improvements vs. NS 6MO2019 operating ratio 65% vs. 66.9% 6MO2018 gained through 25% cost reduction and 75% unit revenue growth improvements.

In this quarter NS matched CSX operating ratio improvement and with CSX now dependent upon cost reductions with headwinds provided by Philadelphia refinery traffic loss and both carriers facing domestic truck competitive and apparent overall economic activity headwinds, though with NS just getting started with potential upside PSR cost reductions and CSX just re-organized to further execute their intermodal pivot.

Also noteworthy, NS received the lowest positive Class 1 rating in Cowan's 1Q2019 rail shippers customer service survey. Additionally, shippers citing improved rail service for shift to rail 20% 2Q2019 up from 15% 1Q2019, however, with fewer shippers answering that they would shift greater quantities of freight should rail service improve.

Post Reply

Return to “CSX Transportation”