CSX vs. NS performance

[Anonymous]

In the fourth quarter of 2004, CSX had an operating ratio of 85.0%, an improvement of 1.7 points over the year-ago quarter, but still the worst among the Big Six except for UP, which was at 86.0%.

In the same period, NS had an operating ratio of 76.3%, a 4.0-point improvement over the year-ago quarter, and the second-best operating ratio in the industry (although it lagged industry-best CN by 11.3 points).

Question: can CSX catch up?

My own theory, subject to challenge by anyone who knows more about these railroads than I do, is that CSX is likely to under-perform NS for the foreseeable future, in large part because NS's physical plant is superior to CSX's, and with rail volumes growing at a rapid clip, CSX doesn't have the capacity to manage these volumes efficiently.

My impression of NS is that much of the former Southern Railway territory is either double-track CTC or at least has frequent passing sidings that permit fluid operation, whereas CSX's former SCL/L&N territory is mainly a single-track railroad with less frequent sidings.

As for N&W territory vs. Chessie, I know that CSX put a lot of money into rebuilding the west end of the B&O before the Conrail splitup, but still, I suspect that overall the former N&W is superior physically to the former C&O/B&O.

Here's a quote from a Don Phillips story in the Washington Post (12/16/03) that I think has some bearing on this: "CSX for years limited capital spending in part to make its finances look better. It began reducing spending in the late 1980s, shortly before Snow became chief executive. From 1991 to 1998, CSX spent less per mile of track than any other major railroad, regulatory filings show."

It also seemed to me that SOU and N&W had more modern classification yards than SCL/L&N and Chessie.

As far as the effect of the ex-Conrail territories taken over by each of these railroads, I don't see where there is much difference -- if anything, CSX might be expected to have the edge here since they took over the ex-NYC water level route, whereas NS got the ex-PRR route through the Alleghenies.

I know, too, that there are cultural differences between the two railroads. N&W and SOU always seemed to run very disciplined operations, in contrast to Chessie and Seaboard. Both railroads had big problems in the wake of the Conrail splitup, but NS got itself back on track a lot quicker, and I would credit that to a disciplined team that understood what had to be done to get back to being a scheduled railroad.

Now, would the experts step forward and tell me whether any of this has any validity and if not, what the real explanation is for the vast difference in performance between these two railroads, and what your expectations are for the future.

Thanks!

Tom Murray

[cpbloom]

It doesn't surprise me, despite what fans may think about the Black and White, NS seems to know what its doing.

[BaltACD]

The only thing CSX has to fear is prosperity.....the 'plant rationalization' pogroms of the 80's and early 90's placed CSX in a perfect position to withstand a Depression era level of traffic.

[MP173]

Tom:

I dont have any inside information, only what I observe and hear. NS seems to have put itself in order pretty well after the Conrail split.

I listen in on my scanner to the NS operations here on the Ft. Wayne-Chicago former NKP line. It is single track CTC with fairly short sidings, built for trains in a past era. That being said, they certainly know how to run a railroad.

The movements on this line are fluid and traffic seems to be growing. Most intermodals are now running in second sections, even after the holiday season ended.

For months I have been monitoring the NS's movements and have found run on a pretty tight schedule. I can usually count on certain trains showing up at nearly the same time each day. That is very good discipline.

I would like to see Trains run a feature article on the eastern railroads, similar to what they seem to do once a year on the western roads. I do not recall an in depth look at the CSX or NS systems, or for that matter, CN or CP in quite some time.

It seems that one railroad system in the east and one in the west have stepped forward (NS and BNSF) while the others have problems. The UP's meltdowns over the years have been very well documented.

If, in fact within a few years we turn to two systems, the obvious partner seem to be BNSF and NS and UP and CSX. Heaven help the UP at that time.

ed

[Train Guy 3]

I'd say the Ex- Virginian mainline from Norfolk into West Virginia keeps the NS coal trains running pretty good.

[swknox]

I am not an expert but have to agree with MP173. Based on what I read, hear, and see NS just seems to know how to run a railroad a lot better than CSX. As the old saying goes "Just being the biggest dosen't mean your the best" and that is true when you compare CSX (which is bigger but not by much) to NS. Don Phillips said in a previous article that he intended to do a breakdown blow by blow story on CSX in an upcoming issue of TRAINS MAG. I hope its soon. CSX is bigger but NS seems to me to have the Key routes where it counts the most and they know how to run them. From what I read NS has the quickest lines to move more traffic between the Northeast and Southeast and the quickest to move from the Midwest to the South (Sun Belt States). The lines in the Northeast are debatable at best. CSX might have the water level route, but NS runs better and makes the grades through the Alleghenies disapear. NS runs a tight ship, Theres not a night that I can't find a particular train here on the Delmarva Secondary that varies from an half hour of expected time that you would expect to see that particular train run its normal schedule. The ONLY exception to the rule is when grain season is going and the last few years we have had great growing seasons for corn and soybeans. I second the motion that TRAINS MAG do a cover story for us in the east, it seems the west has been getting the main stories in trains for the last couple of issues. KEEP SAFE[:p]