How did NS compete with CSX?

[SALfan]

I'm talking about before the two RR's split Conrail. The recent threads on the Milwaukee and Rio Grande with their emphasis on how the superior route will always drive the inferior route out of business started me thinking. Several years ago someone from NS made a statement that CSX had about a 20% mileage advantage everywhere the two railroads went; even discounting that somewhat (it can't be true EVERYWHERE), the old NS did appear to have more unfavorable terrain than CSX, especially between Washington, DC and New Orleans. Was the shorter NS route enough to make up for all the hills and curves? Was NS that much better managed? Were other factors involved, and if so what were they? Inquiring minds want to know (this one, anyway).

[gabe]

All I can say is "good question."

Gabe

[JoeKoh]

Ns has certain routes to its advantage.like the auto parts corridor between detroit and kc that doesnt go through chicago or st. louis.Also the prr sandusky line between columbus and their nkp line worked for them too.they had a n article sometime back in trains and said they took a lemon and made lemonade.
stay safe
Joe

[oltmannd]

A few thoughts:

The ex NKP and Wabash are excellent routes - as good as or better than CSX's between the same point pairs.

The N&W is (still) a fast route from the Tidewater to the near mid-west.

The CNO&TP is hugely better than the old L&N et. al.

The ex-SOU main may have curves, but it isn't slow. Worst section - from Charlotte to Atlanta is populated by many 3 deg curves, but has 5" superelevation, so 50-60 mph is still the rule.

NS cornered the auto market - particularly Ford traffic by offering better service than CSX.

I think traffic loaded on line was somewhat of an equalizer, as well. The south still generates quite a bit of carload traffic.

[kevarc]

The answer is easy - service. CSX needs to quit shooting themselves in the foot. While NS may be a total pain to work for, they do know how to run trains.

[SALfan]

Thanks to those who responded. I hadn't thought about some of points you raised. Thought I'd move it to the head of the line in case someone missed it.

[Anonymous]

Same way the N&W always competed with C&O. C&O had more coal business and an easier railroad to handle it on than N&W. They didn't have N&W's curves, N&W's grades, didn't have any more passenger business to support, and they had the advantage on the west end of taking Lake Coal all the way to the lake where N&W had to give it to connections at Columbus.

C&O should have mopped up Wall Street with the N&W, but was never anywhere near the moneymaker N&W was.

So, to me, it means that N&W's management was better. Always. And NS's is still better.

Old Timer

[rrnut282]

Joe
One leg of the Wabash does go through St Louis on its way to Kansas City and Omaha.

[daveklepper]

Also, the merger of the Sourthern with the N&W was well managed and brought together people who thought similarly in many ways.