Let me know, me and my friends will be more than happy to take a ride on that!
On topic kind of (at least I hope so) my better half just watched the just out movie "Bolt"-a Pixar type animation movie-the animals featured were traveling cross country, & at 1 point, hopped a ride on a CSX train-a mixed freight/intermodal, & pretty much accurate for the animation. I didn't catch the credits, but wonder if CSX was listed, as other products are in the movies.
I fell asleep watching one the other night, either that or I'm seeing CSX ads in my dreams. I kinda hope not.
aegrogatio, is it? I just wanted to mention I like the Pucca avatar.
desertdogminiwyo Paul_D_North_Jr OK, thanks - that would make the RR from 2.4 [21.8 / 9 ] to 3.6 [ 21.8 / 6] times more efficient, based on the above numbers. Just for the heck of it, I looked up the similar statistics for CN for the 3rd Quarter 2008, at page 15 of 17, of: http://www.cn.ca/documents/Investor-Financial-Quarterly-2008/Q3-2008-Financial-Statements-en.pdf CN does slightly better than the AAR average and CSX as calculated above - CN was moving 1 ton of cargo about 493 miles per gallon, and getting about 939 GTMs per gallon (for what that's worth). - Paul North. Well, since the efficency is proven, my next question is, Why are we using this really efficent mode of transportation for interstate passenger travel more? Can the federal govenrment force the railroads to go back to running thier own passenger trains? The way I see it, if we have a jump in ridership, with more routes and destinations, thne the price f a ticket would go down, making it more affordable for people who can't afford to drive long distance able to travel. I truly hope that the federal government doesn't "force" the railroads to do anything of the sort. Once government starts "forcing" railroads, where does it stop? At some point they can force upon us all sorts of things they believe are "good" for the people. England, France and Germany are great examples of individual civil liberties that have been traded for "the good of the people." "Government" has had control of rail passenger service in this country for what, almost four decades? It's been a mess all along. John Timm
miniwyo Paul_D_North_Jr OK, thanks - that would make the RR from 2.4 [21.8 / 9 ] to 3.6 [ 21.8 / 6] times more efficient, based on the above numbers. Just for the heck of it, I looked up the similar statistics for CN for the 3rd Quarter 2008, at page 15 of 17, of: http://www.cn.ca/documents/Investor-Financial-Quarterly-2008/Q3-2008-Financial-Statements-en.pdf CN does slightly better than the AAR average and CSX as calculated above - CN was moving 1 ton of cargo about 493 miles per gallon, and getting about 939 GTMs per gallon (for what that's worth). - Paul North. Well, since the efficency is proven, my next question is, Why are we using this really efficent mode of transportation for interstate passenger travel more? Can the federal govenrment force the railroads to go back to running thier own passenger trains? The way I see it, if we have a jump in ridership, with more routes and destinations, thne the price f a ticket would go down, making it more affordable for people who can't afford to drive long distance able to travel.
Paul_D_North_Jr OK, thanks - that would make the RR from 2.4 [21.8 / 9 ] to 3.6 [ 21.8 / 6] times more efficient, based on the above numbers. Just for the heck of it, I looked up the similar statistics for CN for the 3rd Quarter 2008, at page 15 of 17, of: http://www.cn.ca/documents/Investor-Financial-Quarterly-2008/Q3-2008-Financial-Statements-en.pdf CN does slightly better than the AAR average and CSX as calculated above - CN was moving 1 ton of cargo about 493 miles per gallon, and getting about 939 GTMs per gallon (for what that's worth). - Paul North.
OK, thanks - that would make the RR from 2.4 [21.8 / 9 ] to 3.6 [ 21.8 / 6] times more efficient, based on the above numbers.
Just for the heck of it, I looked up the similar statistics for CN for the 3rd Quarter 2008, at page 15 of 17, of:
http://www.cn.ca/documents/Investor-Financial-Quarterly-2008/Q3-2008-Financial-Statements-en.pdf
CN does slightly better than the AAR average and CSX as calculated above - CN was moving 1 ton of cargo about 493 miles per gallon, and getting about 939 GTMs per gallon (for what that's worth).
- Paul North.
Well, since the efficency is proven, my next question is, Why are we using this really efficent mode of transportation for interstate passenger travel more? Can the federal govenrment force the railroads to go back to running thier own passenger trains? The way I see it, if we have a jump in ridership, with more routes and destinations, thne the price f a ticket would go down, making it more affordable for people who can't afford to drive long distance able to travel.
I truly hope that the federal government doesn't "force" the railroads to do anything of the sort. Once government starts "forcing" railroads, where does it stop? At some point they can force upon us all sorts of things they believe are "good" for the people. England, France and Germany are great examples of individual civil liberties that have been traded for "the good of the people."
"Government" has had control of rail passenger service in this country for what, almost four decades? It's been a mess all along.
John Timm
I guess "force" was the wrong word to use. But can they offer some sort of incentive to begin running passenger trains. I guess what I am driving at, is the idea that rail travel is definitely cheaper and more efficent that flying, and if the railroads themselves did the passenger service like they once did, I tihnk that although not greatly profitable, they would definitely see more riders especially when the economy turns around and fuel spikes again.
Am I completely oblivious to sometihng that prevents this or no?
RJ
"Something hidden, Go and find it. Go and look behind the ranges, Something lost behind the ranges. Lost and waiting for you. Go." The Explorers - Rudyard Kipling
http://sweetwater-photography.com/
penncentral2002 [clip] My favorite was when I lived in the Washington area - various defense contractors were always printing ads in the Washington Post regarding some new submarine or airplane. I think I cut one out (an ad for a new nuclear attack submarine) and put it on my dormroom wall because it was so hilarious. I felt like calling up the company and asking if I could order one. [clip] By the way, to paraphrase Steve Dallas in a classic Bloom County cartoon - "don't you think that the American Association of Railroads research might be a bit biased?"
By the way, to paraphrase Steve Dallas in a classic Bloom County cartoon - "don't you think that the American Association of Railroads research might be a bit biased?"
Yep, that's pretty funny.
Now that you ask - sure, the AAR "research" or report might be a bit biased. That's another reason I cross-checked those claims by comparing with both the CSXT's 2007 Annual Report to the STB, and CN's 3rd Quarter 2008 statement, which gets filed with the SEC. Both are essentially reports to Federal agencies, and entitled to be relied upon by same and investors, so some pretty severe penalties - like "substandard Federal housing" for a few years - attach to deliberate falsification of the data therein, particularly now with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in effect. Also, those are primarily financial reports - the production of ton-miles and fuel expenses are important, but not the principal purpose of those reports - as are the earnings which drive the stock price and hence executive compensation and bonuses, etc., and so there isn't any real incentive to "cook the books" with these figures. Further, I think it's hard to predict with any confidence what altering those figures would do to the stock price - is it better or worse if they use more or less fuel in any one period, as compared to another one ? There's a heck of a lot of data in those reports - too much to engage in a scheme of any kind without getting exposed or tripped up, in my opinion. I don't see how CN, for example, could have expected CSX (and then me) would use those figures in this specific way. Plus, the consistency - and normal variations - in the results that I calculated, and the correlation with similar well-accepted "rules of thumb", corroborates those mileage claims. But that's just my conclusion - I'd be interested in seeing any others, and the data that supports them.
I've seen the ads on TV here in Richmond, VA - not heard them on the radio.
Why do any nonconsumer companies ever advertise - either to built goodwill or because they want the government to do something or not do something. My favorite was when I lived in the Washington area - various defense contractors were always printing ads in the Washington Post regarding some new submarine or airplane. I think I cut one out (an ad for a new nuclear attack submarine) and put it on my dormroom wall because it was so hilarious. I felt like calling up the company and asking if I could order one.
Its all public relations.
Paul_D_North_JrOK, thanks - that would make the RR from 2.4 [21.8 / 9 ] to 3.6 [ 21.8 / 6] times more efficient, based on the above numbers. Just for the heck of it, I looked up the similar statistics for CN for the 3rd Quarter 2008, at page 15 of 17, of: http://www.cn.ca/documents/Investor-Financial-Quarterly-2008/Q3-2008-Financial-Statements-en.pdf CN does slightly better than the AAR average and CSX as calculated above - CN was moving 1 ton of cargo about 493 miles per gallon, and getting about 939 GTMs per gallon (for what that's worth). - Paul North.
The CSX ads are also playing on Los Angeles area radio stations.
miniwyo I am still questioning the validity of the claim they are making that they can move 1 ton of freight 426 miles on 1 gallon of fuel. Any one know if this is true?
Yes, I'd say it appears to be true, on both an industry-wide (436 Ton-Miles ["TM"] of Freight per Gallon ) and at the CSX-specific (435 Ton-Miles of Freight per Gallon) levels (although I recall that the claim is moving 1 ton for 423 miles per gallon). Anyway, specific support for that claim is:
From the Association of American Railroads' (AAR) website,
http://www.aar.org/IndustryInformation/~/media/AAR/BackgroundPapers/466.ashx
which is a "Background Paper" by the AAR - Policy and Economics Department titled "Freight Railroads & Greenhouse Gas Emissions", dated June 2008, Page 2 of 4, under the heading "Railroads Are Constantly Working to Improve Fuel Efficiency", middle of 1st paragraph:
"In 2007, one gallon of fuel moved one ton of freight by rail an average of 436 miles". [emphasis added]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For CSX itself, from the most recent available "Class I Railroad Annual Report - CSX Transportation, Inc. To The Surface Transportation Board For the Year Ended Dec. 28, 2007" ["CSXT - 2007 - Railroad Annual Report R-1"], at:
http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/92/92932/R1_2007.pdf
From Table "755. RAILROAD OPERATING STATISTICS - Concluded, Line No. 110, Item Description 8 - Ton-Miles of Freight (thousands) (footnote L), 8-03 - TOTAL Revenue Ton-Miles", middle of page 97 (Page 123 of 127 of this "PDF" file):
TOTAL Ton-Miles of Freight (thousands): 247,459,905
Note that these are "net" ton-miles - for the revenue freight (only), which does not include non-revenue cargo (like Maintenance-Of-Way materials and supplies), and also not including the "tare" weight of the various freight cars themselves and the locomotives used to pull those cars, which would be "gross ton-miles" ("GTM").
From Table "750. CONSUMPTION OF DIESEL FUEL, Line No. 4, TOTAL Diesel Oil (gallons), bottom/ right of page 91 (Page 117 of 127 of this "PDF" file):
TOTAL Diesel oil (gallons) : 568,854,125
Dividing,
247,459,905 TOTAL Ton-Miles of Freight (thousands) =
568,854,125 TOTAL Diesel oil (gallons)
0.4350 Ton-Miles of Freight (thousands) per Gallon =
435 Ton-Miles of Freight Per Gallon =
1 Ton of Freight for 435 Miles per Gallon.
If the gross ton-miles are also included and used for this calculation instead, then the mileage doubles, as follows (same format):
From Table "755. RAILROAD OPERATING STATISTICS - Concluded, Line No. 104, Item Description 6 - Gross Ton-Miles (thousands) (footnote K), 6-05 - TOTAL Gross Ton-Miles", top of page 97 (Page 123 of 127 of this "PDF" file):
TOTAL Gross Ton-Miles (thousands): 496,060,668
Dividing again,
496,060,668 TOTAL Gross Ton-Miles (thousands) =
0.8720 TOTAL Gross Ton-Miles (thousands) per Gallon =
872 Gross Ton-Miles per Gallon.
In comparison, to perform equally well a fully-loaded 80,000 lb. (40 gross tons) tractor-trailer truck would have to achieve:
872 Gross Ton-Miles per Gallon = 21.8 Miles per Gallon !
40 Gross Tons
I don't know exactly what a truck of this type can achieve in fuel efficiency, but I suspect it is only around 1/2 (10 - 11 MPG) or 1/3 (7 MPG) as good. I know at least one of our Forum members can provide better info on that !
Hope this answers your question.
ironhorsemanI heard CSX was an evil corporation that will pick your pocket and steal your soul when you're not looking. Is this true?
What's the old saw? "Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see." ???
Depending on your point of view, that description could describe most large corporations.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
I saw the ads on the internet, on one of the news sites, CNN or Fox or something. But everytime I try to access the website www.csx.com I get this:
HOWEVER... the website www.csx-sucks.com seems to be up and running quite fine, never any error there.
I heard CSX was an evil corporation that will pick your pocket and steal your soul when you're not looking. Is this true?
yad sdrawkcab s'ti
CSXrules4eva Watch out CSX's commercials might brainwash you !!! Just Kidding. I live in Kentucky and have seen a lot of CSX's commercials too. What is intresting to me is this. They are spending billions of bucks on commercials but claim to not have any money. Get this CSX's stock price is now 33 bucks per share. When I joined the company last year it was 69 bucks a share. On another note..I do like the commercials
Watch out CSX's commercials might brainwash you !!! Just Kidding. I live in Kentucky and have seen a lot of CSX's commercials too. What is intresting to me is this. They are spending billions of bucks on commercials but claim to not have any money. Get this CSX's stock price is now 33 bucks per share. When I joined the company last year it was 69 bucks a share.
On another note..I do like the commercials
You can rest assured that they are not spending Billons for the commercials....they throw around nickles like they were manhole covers. If they start running the ad's at the Super Bowl then the advertising program my be headed to being a true cost center.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
One of those squeeky money wasters in congress tried to propose impossibly high engine emissions standards for locomotives. CSX and the other RRs would stand to lose huge amounts of money to try to meet those standards. Advertising that they are already the most environmentally friendly means of transporting frieght is a defensive strategy.
I've seen them on TV here in Kansas. I can't remember if they were on Fox news or the Discovery channel.
HEdwardEnvironmental based ads are.......NOT TO DRUM UP BUSINESS!!!!!!
I hate to be the cynic here, but an ad campain by this particular railroad wouldn't be out there unless there somehow was money to be derived from it.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
Environmental based ads are.......NOT TO DRUM UP BUSINESS!!!!!!
Sadly, everytime I post something along these lines it get pulled for being political.(hint!)
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
CSX has been advertising quite a bit from what I've seen. That weas an interesting site with the advertisements, thanks for the link.
CSX commercials on YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeCIruqe0FM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saqb4MtVm4o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy_5r-U1EnI#
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jDk-g02GNw
I am still questioning the validity of the claim they are making that they can move 1 ton of freight 426 miles on 1 gallon of fuel. Any one know if this is true?
I first heard these advertisements in September.I was heading home from Maine and heard them in Massachusetts.Besides being surprised at the ads I was even more surprised by the frequency of the ads.
Duke University has a bunch of old railroad ads at this link:
http://library.duke.edu/digitalcollections/search/results?t=railroads
As rail proponents we all lament that the general public forgets that railroads exist....except when they are blocked by a train at a road crossing or when the get informed by the media of a major incident. In an physical environment that his going Green, and a legislative environment that has some shipper seeking the re-regulate the railroads back to the pre-Staggers era it is time for the railroad to begin the PR case...We Exist and We Exist to the benefit of the environment and to the economic benefit of the shipping public when compared to competing modes. The railroads advertising campaigns are addressing the invisibility of the railroads.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.