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

  • 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

  by Noel Weaver
 
It is more than just pulling out a siding and shipping by something other
than rail. The heavy industry that prevailed all over the north east until
probably the late 60's when a decline took place that lasted for quite some
years. Any number of heavy industries such as steel, mining, brass,
machine tools and much, much more are no longer operating at all, they
are gone and will for the most part never ever return again. So why
aren't the railroads all gone with them? Because in some cases they have
been able to adapt to intermodal, containers, garbage, unit trains of coal,
grain, oil etc, automobiles and some other stuff which has salvaged their
operations. Why are yards like Rochester, Cedar Hill, Springfield,
Hartford, Waterbury and lots more places no longer used or very little
used? Simple, the business that produced the shipments that went
through these yards are no longer in business and there is no longer a
need for their use. It is not the fault of the railroads nor the employees
nor the management either for that matter, it is simply what has happened
here over the past 40 or so years.
One thing that made Conrail so successful during its later years was the
forsight to go for container business in a big way, fix up the physical plant
to be able to compete with the trucks for efficiency, time and costs and in
doing so, they got a lot of business from the trucks. Even outfits like
Hunt, Schneider and others joined in with Conrail to be part of a winning
team. I know some on here will not agree with me but Conrail also cut
jobs, yards, trackage and even entire lines to get their operations into a
profit mode and made their operations efficient enough that they were
able to compete very effectively for the traffic that remained.
Yes, during my time on the railroad a lot of changes occurred and some
of them directly affected me but in the end, there was enough work for
everybody who really wanted to work and in some cases who were willing
to go where the work was.
For many, the jobs that remained were pretty darn good jobs and the
people working these jobs not only had a good job but a decent future as
well. For several years the unions and the people whom they represent
worked together with the management people to insure that the railroad
ran in a smooth fashion. Generally there was a spirit of very good
cooperation between management and the troops.
Unfortunately, today CSX has made a lot of changes not only in the
maintenance of the property but in the way they treated the same
troops who contributed to the success of Conrail over the years. This, as
expected, has not set well with the former Conrail people and they are
the ones in a position to know the results of this unfortunate situation.
I recall the time when the top management of CSX made a former Conrail
officer the president and he was determined to insure that the railroad
would continue to be well maintained as it was during the Conrail years.
The top CSX person (John Snow) did not agree with putting dollars back
into proper maintenance and the policy came down that Conrail was over
maintained. Snow made sure that the former Conrail person was tossed
aside and somebody else from CSX took over and when this happened
the maintenance was cut back. The result of this is what we are seeing
today, derailed and damaged cars decorating the landscape along the
tracks while valuable shipments are being lost and destroyed. A car load
of brand new automobiles, a container of valuable electronic equipment
and god forbid a tank car of hazardous chemicles is a huge financial loss
not only for the railroad but for others too. When you add up the
injuries, sometimes evacuations, damages and other consequences from
a major derailment, I sometimes wonder that it hasn't affected the
balance sheet much more than it actually has.
I hope I haven't bored you all with these comments, just wanted to get
them off my chest.
Noel Weaver

  by rocketman
 
Well said.

  by spatcher
 
A little bit on information to compare the saftey of both CR and CSX. From the FRA website:

Train accidents per million train miles

CR

1996-3.8
1997-4.1
1998-5.1

CSX

2005 5.1
2006 3.6
2007 3.3
2008 2.6

  by rocketman
 
RATE OF ACCIDENTS DUE TO TRACK FAILURE - MAINLINE
CONRAIL
93 - 0.51
94 - 0.35
95 - 0.36
96 - 0.32
97 - 0.34
98 - 0.28
99 - 0.06
CSXT
97 - 0.33
98 - 0.50
99 - 0.41
00 - 0.45
01 - 0.42
02 - 0.42
03 - 0.44
04 - 0.37
05 - 0.39
06 - 0.43
07 - 1.00
08 - 0.53

  by pablo
 
All of the stats are nice, but the hedge fund's questions make perfect sense, and this is the first time I've seen them laid out like this.

I agree that perhaps the statistics look good enough to refute the idea that the derailments aren't much worse. However, is there a statistic for how, for instance, the Water Level Route has fared under both lines, as opposed to the whole railroads? After all, we aren't talking about all of CSX, or all of Conrail either.

Furthermore, to spend more now, when things are headed backwards, when the claim for years was that we are "doing all we need to" doesn't make a whole lot of sense, at least as CSX has explained it.

Dave Becker

  by MuddyAxles
 
spatcher wrote:Funny, that is a whole lot of people reading it wrong. But anyway

Ward replied to TCI was this: (and said what he had to say, I already read it)
Well, I can only read in the TCI letter what it says, and if a whole lot of people are reading it wrong, then so be it. I am not surprised because these people probably were mostly educated post 1975-80 and don't actually read, but look at the little squigglies and try to guess what they are saying to them.

Now, if you want to force me to start posting the letter sentence for sentence so we can analyze it for content and meaning, I will begin right now, no actually, I may be able to find an online copy and be able to copy and paste it in here. All I need is one more challenge and we will take it word for word, if you like, and try to determine what these limey blokes really mean here.

And after I post the quotes from the letter, I will look to you, Mr. "spatcher" to tell all of us what the true meaning is. Please, before you do that, look up the letter and read it all...all of it...and try to understand these people want their property managed as a business, not a high paid social club for derelict management personalities.

Gol dang it, I really get torqued. If I had succumbed to the conventional logic and believed CSX management, my stock would have been worth $2,000 more today than when I sold it. I took my profits and now take my weekly paycheck...I don't know why I waste time trying to convince people that Michael Ward in not the second coming of Christ in the US railroad business. Geez...Warren Buffet knows all that, why can't the people on here understand that? I still believe the stock price will fall flat on its face to unprecedented levels, unless management finds a way to spend themselves out of this debacle.

Duct tape.....where's the duct tape? Gotta have duct tape...for head....about to explode....duct tape for head nneeedddd it nnnooowww!!! Just some duct taaaaape pleeez!!! P---O---W ! ! OOOooooooo......

(Oh, and Mr. Ward conveniently included what EVERYONE knows about hedge funds...which isn't necessarily true, just what the corporate raiders want you to believe. They want all the gravy for themselves!!)
Last edited by MuddyAxles on Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

  by MuddyAxles
 
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.
Yeah. about half the Rochester jobs went away in the last two years...the freight just isn't there.

  by MuddyAxles
 
spatcher wrote:A little bit on information to compare the saftey of both CR and CSX. From the FRA website:

Train accidents per million train miles

CR

1996-3.8
1997-4.1
1998-5.1

CSX

2005 5.1
2006 3.6
2007 3.3
2008 2.6
Notice how the stats changed after former NS management came over to CSX. Also, what happened to 1999-2004, didn't they fit into your premise?

  by MuddyAxles
 
roadster wrote:Cause was a broken axle. wheel fell off just east of Maple st crossing and pileup began in the east crossover of CP 349.
Hi roadster,

Went through CP 349 with my beast (at 25 mph, still) on trk 2 and I could not see any marks on that looked like dragging damage west of the derailment site even well past the road crossing. Whatever happened didn't leave much evidence visible at night...maybe just marks on the rail or something. Actually, the track looked quite good there. Was it resurfaced that far west of the wreck, I wonder?

  by MuddyAxles
 
pablo wrote:All of the stats are nice, but the hedge fund's questions make perfect sense, and this is the first time I've seen them laid out like this.

I agree that perhaps the statistics look good enough to refute the idea that the derailments aren't much worse. However, is there a statistic for how, for instance, the Water Level Route has fared under both lines, as opposed to the whole railroads? After all, we aren't talking about all of CSX, or all of Conrail either.

Furthermore, to spend more now, when things are headed backwards, when the claim for years was that we are "doing all we need to" doesn't make a whole lot of sense, at least as CSX has explained it.

Dave Becker
THANK YOU, SIR! :wink:

  by roadster
 
I was gunna post here again but realized, this has turned into the same old discussion again. We can all find stats to backup our opposing positions. Bottom line is there's defective track and equipment out there. CSX has been working on correcting the situation, but it's not gunna happen overnight,(or next year) I pray neither myself nor any of my brothers and sisters loose our lives to the neglect.

  by Scrappy
 
roadster wrote:I was gunna post here again but realized, this has turned into the same old discussion again. We can all find stats to backup our opposing positions. Bottom line is there's defective track and equipment out there. CSX has been working on correcting the situation, but it's not gunna happen overnight,(or next year) I pray neither myself nor any of my brothers and sisters loose our lives to the neglect.

I agree, in the Sub-Division I work in, there seems to be a good bit of improvements setup to be done.

  by roadster
 
I reviewed the system ledger the other day and read about incidents and derailments all across the CSX system including 2 of simular size and cost as this one. Seems, we in the former Conrail area tend to pay closer attention than other areas. Incident occurances are no higher on the former Conrail trackage than any other CSX division. Just tends to be observed and posted alot more.

  by hotlanta
 
conrail_engineer wrote:Train speed, according to the Democrat and Chronicle, was 47 mph. Under the old Conrail timetables, the mainline "normal" speed for grain, coal and mineral unit trains was 40 mph.

Around about 2001, the Great Minds in Jacksonville waved their magic wands, and viola! Coal trains could run at 50 mph! Now considering that a coal train is between twice and three times as heavy as a regular freight - generally between 17,000 and 22,000 TONS - that decision makes quite a bit of assumptions.

Rule of physics: Double the speed, increase by a factor of four the force, inertia, and distance to stop.

Not saying it played a part here...but it's one more thing that makes you go, "Hmmm"...
But in this case, it was most likely the same 14,000 ton train that comes through Selkirk, a far cry from 22,000 tons

  by MuddyAxles
 
[/quote]

But in this case, it was most likely the same 14,000 ton train that comes through Selkirk, a far cry from 22,000 tons[/quote]

Well, really, unless you're considering a bridge or dynamic forces due to "head end only" braking, which dynamic braking with the locomotives really is, the overall tonnage of the train is, for the most part, moot, other than the consideration of the duration of the tonnage hammering on a bad spot.

Unless a car is overloaded, each axle, each truck carries virtually the same tonnage in a unit train like coal, or just under 18 tons per wheel. A locomotive, on the other hand, carries just under 17 tons per wheel, but there are six on each truck grouped more closely together, exerting about 50% more tonnage in only a slightly larger area of track.

That's why I hold my breath when I go over some of these spots, and I won't cross over at the allowed 45 mph either!


:P Well, we've beat this pretty much to death. Damage is fixed for the most part and trains are moving again. Let's put this one to bed!

How 'bout it? :-D