Yet another CSX derailment--Palmyra, NY 4/3/08

from 1999 through 2006 tie replacement fell below that necessary to support 50-70 trains per day and until 2007 rail replacement of any kind was non-existent, except for small sections?

We've been over this many times before and we all know how the dividends, performance bonuses, and stock re-purchases have been funded.

This topic is also why the Children's Investment Fund, one of those nasty "offshore hedge funds", wants to know why the maintenance budget is now climbing during an era of declining traffic, which, under adequate management, would not be the norm.

What they said was: For years you, CSX Management, have told us our (their, CIF's and others') property has been properly maintained by means of sufficient annual investment in plant (tracks, signals, etc.) and equipment. But now, as business declines (as it has for several quarters now) you, CSX Management has found it necessary to increase investment in plant and equipment, even as traffic declines.

Without saying it directly, as though they were attempting to get CSX Management to "come clean" and admit their past errors, they were implying CSX Management had misrepresented the truth about the health of the company...in other words, the stockholders had been lied to for some time.

CIF didn't even address the timing of all this frenzied new maintenance funding (publicly, at least), that resulted suddenly in track maintenance becoming a priority after the several derailments including two with haz-mat and fire & smoke, which got the attention of the public, FRA Administrator (former NYS DOT head), and two fairly vocal and powerful U.S. Senators from New York State.

After winter 2006-7 we have seen ballast, ties, turn-outs, and rail in quantities unseen (on the Lakeshore subdivision, at least) since split-date.

Years of deferred maintenance will take years to recover from.

Without trying to instigate another round of this discussion "again". Prior to split date Conrails infastructure was toted by trade representatives as one of the best in the country. The former Conrail NYC row sees 50 - 70 trains a day. No where else on CSX vast system does this frequency accure. CSX officials after inspecting the system in '99, quickly denouced Conrails maintainance proceedures and policys as accessive and quickly brought the divisions programs to a system wide standard. Over the past 9 years, train frequency, train tonnage have increased, and more powerful locomotives now raise stress levels even higher. In recent months, federal investigations have revealed these short comings and CSX implimented an aggressive maintainance program. Alot of tie and rail replacement occured last year and this year appears to be even more miles of ties and rail being replaced and several interlockings have prefab switches built nearby awaiting the upcoming maintainance seasons. While steps have been taken, it's not gunna happen overnight. Now back to the Pamyra incident. A broken axle/wheel assembly was found a 1/4 mile prior to the derailment site, damage to rail and ties from this point to the derailment site pretty much narrows it down. Oh yeah, no damage was inflicted upon the signal bridges. This was not a track infastructure issue.

I have also wondered about this. The same amount of traffic goes over the Garret sub, without the amount of derailments that the old CR side has. While I am sure that the people who came over from CR will kick and scream about this, one only has to look at the where the majority of the derailments have happend.

mmi16 wrote:

braves2905 wrote:Im sure CSX's deferred maintenance program was up to standard for this one...

Since the track related incidents appear to be occurring more frequently on the former ConRail territory than the former CSX territory, I would have to draw two conclusions.

1. The materials installed by ConRail on this territory are inferior to the materials that CSX installed on it's own territory during the similar span of time....(In general rail replacement is calculated on age and gross ton miles that the rail has handled since it was installed...all railroads keep records that generate this data....inferior quality rail would begin failing before it's time, or before the standard quality rail.)

2. The maintenance provided by the former ConRail employees has been inferior on their territory to the maintenance provided by the former CSX employees on the former CSX territory.

One reality of any railroad operation...Maintenance of Way management/employees always want more money and materials to take care of the property than those that control the purse strings are willing to allot...that is the way of the world. Maintenance is not flashy, never has been and never will be....REQUIRED but not the sizzle when selling the steak.

roadster wrote: no damage was inflicted upon the signal bridges.

Ahhhh, must be the angle of the photos.

[quote="spatcher"]I have also wondered about this. The same amount of traffic goes over the Garret sub, without the amount of derailments that the old CR side has. While I am sure that the people who came over from CR will kick and scream about this, one only has to look at the where the majority of the derailments have happend.


Interesting. Wasn't the Garret sub rebuilt to accomodate the new flow of Conrail traffic onto the old B&O as part of the Conrail breakup? If so, would be a case of one line receiving major capital infusion while the other received deferred or inadequate maintenance. In any regard, I think we're too far out from the time CSX assumed control of the ex-CR lines to pin this on Conrail's practices.

The report that a broken axle was the cause came so soon, I was sure it was conjecture since there was no early report that damage had been found 1/4 mile preceding the actual derailment site, not even in the CSX write-up..

But, consider this, wherever it broke, if it was far away enough as to not have been buried under the wreckage, the break traveled for some distance, 1/4 mile as has been said. And, if you notice, it passed over a trailing-point switch without apparent damage to it and on to the facing-point switch/rough/weak spot before it finally took a dump (literally).

Kinda tells you something about rough/weak spots, they give way first.

Noel Weaver I believe is retired from Conrail, so I am sure he can shed some light. CSX has never been known for anything great, let alone track maintenance. I've operated over the NS and CSX. The NS at least where I worked was meticulously maintained with no slow orders. CSX in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina is chock full of slow orders. The FRA needs to get aggressive with CSX. There is really no excuse for these conditions when you're company is raking in record profits.

braves2905 wrote:Noel Weaver I believe is retired from Conrail, so I am sure he can shed some light. CSX has never been known for anything great, let alone track maintenance. I've operated over the NS and CSX. The NS at least where I worked was meticulously maintained with no slow orders. CSX in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina is chock full of slow orders. The FRA needs to get aggressive with CSX. There is really no excuse for these conditions when you're company is raking in record profits.

Ain't that what the Children's Investment Fund was saying?

A-a-ah, bit we digress from the original topic once again!

MuddyAxles wrote:

braves2905 wrote:Noel Weaver I believe is retired from Conrail, so I am sure he can shed some light. CSX has never been known for anything great, let alone track maintenance. I've operated over the NS and CSX. The NS at least where I worked was meticulously maintained with no slow orders. CSX in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina is chock full of slow orders. The FRA needs to get aggressive with CSX. There is really no excuse for these conditions when you're company is raking in record profits.

Ain't that what the Children's Investment Fund was saying?

A-a-ah, bit we digress from the original topic once again!

No it is not. TCI says there is TOO MUCH capital spending.

Muddy Axles explained it perfectly - Conrail as a whole was a well maintained railroad until these tool bags took over. They took great advantage of its superior condition and did next to nothing to keep it up. This is the end result. Any maintenance that has been performed lately has been haphazard and poorly executed. Also..don't forget that even with all the rail and ties they put in, they did "very little" (to be fair) with the interlockings which is where the derailments are ALL happening! Speed was mentioned before - could this be a result of this particular carrier's interpretation of limited speed? In my opinion it boils down to totally different maintenance practices. Conrail had their way of maintaining engines cars signals and track and this carrier feels their way is superior. Little do they realize however, that all these changes they have made have literally destroyed a finely tuned well oiled machine that could have made them a lot of money for years to come if only they'd return the love to the equipment and employees. It may work down South but it's apparently not working here. I also feel they have a different attitude towards they're own and that us ba$tard kids are nothing but trouble. This carrier treats the former Conrail territory and its men like the red headed step child!

MuddyAxles wrote:from 1999 through 2006 tie replacement fell below that necessary to support 50-70 trains per day and until 2007 rail replacement of any kind was non-existent, except for small sections?

We've been over this many times before and we all know how the dividends, performance bonuses, and stock re-purchases have been funded.

This topic is also why the Children's Investment Fund, one of those nasty "offshore hedge funds", wants to know why the maintenance budget is now climbing during an era of declining traffic, which, under adequate management, would not be the norm.

What they said was: For years you, CSX Management, have told us our (their, CIF's and others') property has been properly maintained by means of sufficient annual investment in plant (tracks, signals, etc.) and equipment. But now, as business declines (as it has for several quarters now) you, CSX Management has found it necessary to increase investment in plant and equipment, even as traffic declines.

Without saying it directly, as though they were attempting to get CSX Management to "come clean" and admit their past errors, they were implying CSX Management had misrepresented the truth about the health of the company...in other words, the stockholders had been lied to for some time.

CIF didn't even address the timing of all this frenzied new maintenance funding (publicly, at least), that resulted suddenly in track maintenance becoming a priority after the several derailments including two with haz-mat and fire & smoke, which got the attention of the public, FRA Administrator (former NYS DOT head), and two fairly vocal and powerful U.S. Senators from New York State.

After winter 2006-7 we have seen ballast, ties, turn-outs, and rail in quantities unseen (on the Lakeshore subdivision, at least) since split-date.

Years of deferred maintenance will take years to recover from.

Excellent points, Chris. Although this last derailment, and perhaps many others, simply pile up in the interlocking because they are already off the rails or lost a wheel down the line, and pick the switches. The Oneida incident was the same, unless it was crossing over from 1 to 2.

Looking at the bigger picture, shouldn't the priority on capital spending be put on the interlockings and turnouts off the main ? Bridges and viaducts should consume the next largest portion of money. After that, alignment of easement curves and leveling of mud-pumping grade crossings should be next. Then of least priority would be the straight sections of welded rail. Most educated and experienced model train engineers know this.

Who in Jacksonville is making the "educated" decisions on maintainence expenditures ? Anyone ?

spatcher wrote:

MuddyAxles wrote:
Ain't that what the Children's Investment Fund was saying?

A-a-ah, bit we digress from the original topic once again!

No it is not. TCI says there is TOO MUCH capital spending.

No, you didn't read it properly. Neither did TRAINS Magazine and a whole host of others. I carry a copy of that letter in my bag...I have read it a dozen times or more, it says exactly what TCI says on their web site.

It says what I told you it said. Read it again and again. They asked whether the HIGH level of Cap Ex now was PRUDENT NOW in the light of reduced traffic AND in the light of PAST ASSURANCES that maintenance WAS BEING KEPT UP TO SNUFF>

They were asking Michael Ward: "Are you lying to us now, or were you lying to us over the past several years?" Now these people are owners and have a right to ask questions like this. I was an owner. I saw that it WAS getting bad and I sold my paltry 200 shares. Had I known of TCI, I might have stuck it out.

And the derailment record tells the truth about the whole story, whether there were lies or not. Find in it what you will.

Thanks for the support you other guys.

Funny, that is a whole lot of people reading it wrong. But anyway

Ward replied to TCI was this:

""To meet the increasing transportation demands of the American economy the rail industry must continue to make significant investments in its infrastructure. . . [CSX has] a balanced and disciplined plan to invest for the future of our rail network - to add additional capacity, newer equipment and technology, and improved transportation infrastructure and security."

Anyone who has been paying attention has seen that the demand for railroad service is going to go no where but up in the next couple of decades. CSX, for once, is being proactive and investing in the future. While that good planning for the long term future of the company, it does not help the short term. That is why TCI is so against it, they only care about the short term.

spatcher wrote:Anyone who has been paying attention has seen that the demand for railroad service is going to go no where "

Agreed, the majority of rail customers who have helped support the whole rail network flourish over the past decades have pulled out sidings and lost any incentive to ship by rail. Look at the traffic base diminish throughout entire cities in the past few years. If anyone is reading and paying attention, entire metropolitan cities have lost their entire rail traffic base, aside from a couple carloads of say lumber or fertilizer here and there occasionally.

You go down to a major railyard such as Rochester, NY, and the only carloads they actually spot & deliver to customers anymore, you could count on your fingertips. And this is just one of all the other major metropolitan areas to lose almost all traffic base over the past 20 years.

Aside from a couple new ethanol plants, where is the rail customer base flourishing ? All I have been seeing is one after another small warehouse or plant, followed by larger industry and utility, giving up rail service.

FlatWheeler wrote:

spatcher wrote:Anyone who has been paying attention has seen that the demand for railroad service is going to go no where "

Agreed, the majority of rail customers who have helped support the whole rail network flourish over the past decades have pulled out sidings and lost any incentive to ship by rail. Look at the traffic base diminish throughout entire cities in the past few years. If anyone is reading and paying attention, entire metropolitan cities have lost their entire rail traffic base, aside from a couple carloads of say lumber or fertilizer here and there occasionally.

You go down to a major railyard such as Rochester, NY, and the only carloads they actually spot & deliver to customers anymore, you could count on your fingertips. And this is just one of all the other major metropolitan areas to lose almost all traffic base over the past 20 years.

Aside from a couple new ethanol plants, where is the rail customer base flourishing ? All I have been seeing is one after another small warehouse or plant, followed by larger industry and utility, giving up rail service.

So when was the last time you looked at a railroad, 1979?

Thanks for misquoting me, BTW.