NS Derails another in Ohio---Not just CSX!

http://www.bucyrustelegraphforum.com/ap ... 1/61216004


I am absolutely shocked. By reading this forum, I was led to believe that only CSX trains could derail.

shocked and mortified

Yes, I am shocked as well that no one post NS info on the CSX site but you, great job. Reality Nip is derailments happen on all railroads. those of us who are interested in that railroad, look on that site. CSX has has a bad turn of events lately, and people post the info. here on the CSX site. If you wanna discuss the lack of postings of derailments on another railroad, be my quest post it on that railroads site.

keep it NS topics in the NS forum, and yes its true, other railroads derail trains just like CSX as noted in this article

I tweaked the title to fit the forum better...............

roadster wrote:Yes, I am shocked as well that no one post NS info on the CSX site but you, great job. Reality Nip is derailments happen on all railroads. those of us who are interested in that railroad, look on that site. CSX has has a bad turn of events lately, and people post the info. here on the CSX site. If you wanna discuss the lack of postings of derailments on another railroad, be my quest post it on that railroads site.

it was a joke that apparantly went over everyone's heads...

but thanks for playing

hahaha..........Happy Nip?

Nip, I got it, and your points are well-founded. Or finded. I found it, anyway.

Dave Becker

Oh yeah, your sence of humor was just as impressive as your normal rants.

It has been well documented on here and elsewhere that the track
maintenance on CSX is less than great. I have heard it from people who
run over CSX on a daily basis and I am sure that others have too.
I do not condone derailments or mishaps on any railroad for any reason
but they will happen from time to time. I do not condone cutbacks in
maintenance like those that have taken place on CSX especially in the
territory formerly operated by Conrail which is what I am most familiar
with right now.
This is just my OPINION but I think CSX bit off more than they could chew
with the take over of 42 per cent of Conrail. They got into a bidding war
with NS when they would have been better off if the two railroads had
negotiated right from the start. Common sense would dictate that the NS
was not going to just "sit on their pants" and watch CSX and Conrail
merge into one to control a huge percentage of the northeastern railroad
scene.
What will the future be? I don't know but I do know that CSX needs to be
putting more into their physical plant before it continues to slide downhill.
I took pride in working for Conrail, was it perfect? NO but I still took pride
in what I was doing. I would like for the present people with CSX to be
able to say that they take pride in working for CSX but I don't think that is
the case at least at the present time. It is unfortunate but historically,
pride must come from the top management on down.
Noel Weaver

Well while now on the subject of downgrades, in Michigan the Plymouth sub (from Plymouth, to Grand Rapids) has had a perminat 40 MPH (IIRC it was 50) on it now for over a year. Just this week, they instuted the same deal on the Saginaw Sub (now Flint to Carleton) this was also 50 MPH from Flint to Plymouth and 45 from Plymouth to Carleton. The reason we are being told?

To spend less money on track matinance. Now this move affects all auto part and auto rack traffic that moves into Detroit. Plus all the intermodals that 50% of the time, have to run what we call the long way. Boy I can see it now, lets put a 40 MPH on the main between Chicago and NY to save on money.

Come on roadster----crazy nip was responding to a young kid who is a big NS fan that keeps posting about some recent CSX derailments. Yea-Crazy Nip knowsthat other railroads have accidents also---we are just trying to teach junior that other railroads do have unfortunate accidents also! GOT IT?

Someone somewhere is crunching numbers to see if running some trains even slower makes economic sense. I've read in several places where the decision was made to run slower to save on fuel. By slower, I mean less than 79 mph. I believe this was out west, and if I'm wrong, forgive me.

In any case, there is an interesting argument in the inverse. I know that lines where there is less mileage between stations allow for those same intermodals to run at far slower speeds. I am familar with a specific study documenting this, so I've seen it. Basically, find a way to have less miles in the routing, and you can run slower.

So, to recap, if CSX can crunch the numbers, and if it helps them maintain better consistency of service (well, shortlines think this way...so, who knows...), spend less money on trackwork (more likely with CSX, from what everyone and their mother is posting) and spend less money on crews/fuel, etc., they would do it. This assumes that they don't mind spending more money on actual crews themselves since it would take more hours, meaning more crews, per train. Shorter stretches of track, where outlawing is less frequent, or less important, see this tactic from time to time. Think the NS Buffalo line as an example.

Dave Becker

Ns212-------------Yard job at Etowah Tenn. derailed 4 cars in yard this morning---improperly lined switch----CSX is on a roll!!!

CSX-COAL HAULER wrote:Ns212-------------Yard job at Etowah Tenn. derailed 4 cars in yard this morning---improperly lined switch----CSX is on a roll!!!

that sounds like the crew's fault

Just like BNSF, it happens. I was suprised nthat the last covered hopper managed to stay on the rails. How were they able to apply the last Hopper brakes and especially on that kind of spur grade?