Railroad Forums 

  • Why is CSX not in the roadrailer buisness?

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

 #701516  by Cowford
 
Roadrailer is designed to fill a niche between short-haul over-the-road trucking and mid-long distance intermodal. Unfortunately, the economics have proved to be somewhat less than stellar. From what I understand, TCS runs a pretty tight ship regarding utilization and cost control - it has to. Roadrailer has been tried in other areas (Swift Transportation in CA stands out), to no avail. For CSX to develop the network (build new dedicated terminals, invest in trailers and bogies [of a proprietary design, no less], etc.) would simply be a massive investment without likely return. On top of that, TCS's primary revenue comes from auto suppliers. Not a market that's overly attractive right now!
 #706628  by QB 52.32
 
David Benton wrote:perhaps because they'd have to run the trains well , and be customer foscused . i think most would agree NS does better on both scores .
Cowford's response is the more-rational answer as well as one might say it goes to a difference in philosophy and to the economic and market characteristics of both roads. That CSX roadrailer train was actually implemented specifically for a customer and came from a customer-focused point-of-view. CSX holds the service franchise over NS in plenty of intermodal lanes and has a stronger retail position within this segment of traffic. And, on many marketing fronts, one could point to plenty of examples where CSX and its predecessors were the innovators while others followed. In an overall sense, I believe one could argue that CSX runs their trains as well as NS and is at least as focused upon their customers and markets as is NS. Perhaps your point of view comes from railfan perceptions generated by a pro-NS bias found in some railfan media outlets which is cultivated by NS's access through ex-/NS officials and folks closely associated with their railroad vs. CSX which does not want/have that kind of access within railfan-oriented media.
 #706675  by Gadfly
 
QB 52.32 wrote:
David Benton wrote:perhaps because they'd have to run the trains well , and be customer foscused . i think most would agree NS does better on both scores .
Cowford's response is the more-rational answer as well as one might say it goes to a difference in philosophy and to the economic and market characteristics of both roads. That CSX roadrailer train was actually implemented specifically for a customer and came from a customer-focused point-of-view. CSX holds the service franchise over NS in plenty of intermodal lanes and has a stronger retail position within this segment of traffic. And, on many marketing fronts, one could point to plenty of examples where CSX and its predecessors were the innovators while others followed. In an overall sense, I believe one could argue that CSX runs their trains as well as NS and is at least as focused upon their customers and markets as is NS. Perhaps your point of view comes from railfan perceptions generated by a pro-NS bias found in some railfan media outlets which is cultivated by NS's access through ex-/NS officials and folks closely associated with their railroad vs. CSX which does not want/have that kind of access within railfan-oriented media.

CSX also derails more trains than NS! :-D Yeah, I guess I am biased towards NS. I used to go to one of CSX's/Seaboard depots to interchange waybills. IT was so delapidated I was almost afraid to go IN it! :-D I just wasn't used to all that apparent "poverty". Our name for CSX was "Slow-board Clothesline!"! LMAO


GF
 #708575  by ConductorJ
 
CSX is a business like any other business. If something is not profitable, it falls by the wayside no matter if their customers want it or not. Business in the category of their is to feed the major players, let say UPS/Schneider comes to them with a boat of money saying I want roadrailers from A to B...they'll get it. If 50 customers of a local shipper com to them with some money...never...not big enough to ripple their pond. As for qb 's statements. Its best to speak from a position of in game expirence not the sidelines.
 #709676  by neroden
 
ConductorJ wrote:CSX is a business like any other business.
And they used to be a leader in intermodal. But they decided they could make more money by selling Sea-Land to someone else.

CSX has been run with short-termist management for quite a while. I wouldn't expect them to push a major investment in any business which was "odd" or required promotion. :-P
 #709838  by QB 52.32
 
Plenty of railroads over the years, depending upon regulation, the economic outlook for the railroad business, and financial situation and opportunities of their railroad, diversified as part of their strategic plan. Some diversified into all kinds of businesses, like the PC or SP, and, in the '80's CSX pursued a strategy of becoming a "total transportation" company with a railroad, barge line, steamship container line, warehousing, a trucking subsidiary, etc. Right or wrong, in more recent times, as conditions and opportunities within the railroad industry have changed, including greater opportunity and growth, CSX, like other carriers, have re-committed to focusing upon their core railroad business.
 #710121  by mmi16
 
Gadfly wrote:
QB 52.32 wrote:
David Benton wrote:perhaps because they'd have to run the trains well , and be customer foscused . i think most would agree NS does better on both scores .
Cowford's response is the more-rational answer as well as one might say it goes to a difference in philosophy and to the economic and market characteristics of both roads. That CSX roadrailer train was actually implemented specifically for a customer and came from a customer-focused point-of-view. CSX holds the service franchise over NS in plenty of intermodal lanes and has a stronger retail position within this segment of traffic. And, on many marketing fronts, one could point to plenty of examples where CSX and its predecessors were the innovators while others followed. In an overall sense, I believe one could argue that CSX runs their trains as well as NS and is at least as focused upon their customers and markets as is NS. Perhaps your point of view comes from railfan perceptions generated by a pro-NS bias found in some railfan media outlets which is cultivated by NS's access through ex-/NS officials and folks closely associated with their railroad vs. CSX which does not want/have that kind of access within railfan-oriented media.

CSX also derails more trains than NS! :-D Yeah, I guess I am biased towards NS. I used to go to one of CSX's/Seaboard depots to interchange waybills. IT was so delapidated I was almost afraid to go IN it! :-D I just wasn't used to all that apparent "poverty". Our name for CSX was "Slow-board Clothesline!"! LMAO


GF
3 words

Graniteville, South Caroilina
 #710187  by lvrr325
 
Didn't CSX invest in some experimental thing along those lines, but different, that never went anywhere? Got as far as a test train and that was it. Iron Road? I can't think of what it was called. Eventually sold it off to CP or some other road.
 #710231  by QB 52.32
 
Yes, I believe that they were involved with the equipment mfgs. for the concept of a fixed-platform intermodal trainset (not the kind folks play with :-) ) that allowed roll-on/off technology instead of utilizing packers or cranes. Don't recall to what extent, etc. and/or whether there was any government funding of the project. And, yeah, I think the technology is being used by CP.

I'd have to believe that the concept was of interest because of 1) the idea of fixed trainset capacity with no switching and complete minimization of slack (like roadrailers) including the possible idea of converting to a "slot" (platform) reservation system for each train, including booking and pricing, like the airlines do for passengers, and, 2) avoiding the capital costs, terminal capital costs, and, operating and maintenance costs required of a mechanized intermodal operation.

Why they chose to pursue and then reject this technology could be for any number of reasons, like their foray into roadrailers, most of which might never be known or evident in an outside community.