Yet CSX is committed to corporate social responsibility. Check out their web page on the subject:
http://www.csx.com/index.cfm/responsibility/
A lot of intelligent replies on this thread and I think that I understand CSX's stance now as it was certainly has been baffling for those of us that were around back in the day.
In the 1970s and 80s, passenger specials and excursions were regular occurences on the then "railfan friendly" Seaboard Coast Line. It was an honor for me to be a member of the NRHS and to have been able to work the Chessie 614 excursions on Florida's west coast. Seaboard Coast Line was an outstanding host and even went a step further by temporaraly installing water service equipment next to track one (now gone) at Tampa Union Station for steamers and passenger cars. There was plenty of "talk" about future excursions from other organizations. We were excited.
That was 1980-81. After 1986, when CSX was fully entrenched and the "good guys" from the pre-Amtrak days retired. The cultural mindset changed noticeably. There was an effort to improve infrastructure and focus on cutting waste and increasing profits, but the "Champion Davis passion and love mindset" for railroading that had persisted on the ACL, SAL, and later SCL, was clearly gone.
CSX does face hurdles and hassles, yet one looks at the Union Pacific, railroad infamous for putting Amtrak trains in sidings, that has still been willing to run excursions and in the last 2 years connect with the public in a positive light.
A McIntoshI believe you touched on a key difference between what makes a good railroad and what makes a great railroad. The management at CSX has accomplished much to increase capital investment that was neglected under previous management. The one quality that I see in short supply at CSX is the one quality you see at NS. That is you need a true love of the business of railroading. This does not necessarily mean resurrecting historic paint schemes or a steam program, but exhibiting this passion in outreach to rail historical groups. CSX already does this with the B&O museum. It needs to expand on this.
under previous management. The one quality that I see in short supply at CSX is the one quality you see at NS. That is you need a true love of the business of railroading. This does not necessarily mean resurrecting historic paint schemes or a steam program, but exhibiting this passion in outreach to rail historical groups. CSX already does this with the B&O museum. It needs to expand on this.
"I like my Pullman Standards & Budds in Stainless Steel flavors, thank you!"
Moses only had to part the Red Sea once.
Train Dispatchers on freight railroads that handle Amtrak, have to part the Freight Sea multiple times daily.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I remember that, on my last trip, on which I rode only four trains (instead of ten or more), there was one occasion of having to wait for a train moving in the direction opposite to ours--when we met the eastbound California Zephyr, east of Glenwood porings; we had to stop and wait for it since it was running late. Other daytime meets were carried out without my train's having to stop, whether we met a passenger train or a freight train (I did not notice any nighttime meets since I was fast asleep during all of them).
In general, the railroads endeavor to have all meets on single track arranged so that there is little, if any, waiting on the part of either train involved. But, as Tree intimated, railroads are not operated in the best of all possible worlds. Last year, I began my trip in Salt Lake City, with my first change of trains planned to be in Chicago. We arrived in Provo about on time--and sat for five hours because a man walked across the track just as #6 was coming in. I did not hear just why we were delayed so long, but it may have been that no engineer was immediately available in Salt Lake City (the crew base for both east and west movements on Amtrak); perhaps the man who had brought #5 into Salt Lake City the night before was the only engineer available. As it was, we had made up only about an hour by the time we reached Galesburg--even the two-track stretch east of Omaha did not help as much as I hoped it would. Because I had planned to take the Cardinal from Chicago, Amtrak arranged for me and others who also had this transfer scheduled to be carried by the established Thruway bus that took us from Galesburg to Indianapolis, where we continued our rail journey. I do not know what arrangements were made for those who had planned to take the Capitol Limited, unless that train was held until the California Zephyr arrived.
Even thr roads that would truly be happy if no passenger trains used their rails endeavor to keep the Amtrak trains going--lest they face monetary troubles if they unnecessarily delay the passenger trains.
We should not blame the freight railroads for delays unless it is shown that a delay is deliberate, nor should we rail at Amtrak when its trains are delayed.
Johnny
Dispatching a busy railroad is like a chess game - you have to be thinking a number of moves ahead, and be able to change your strategy at a moment's notice when something doesn't go as planned.
And most of Amtrak's routes are on busy railroads.
It sounds like it should be easy, but if a train (freght or pax) suffers a power failure or other problem, or a crew is up against their hours, or a switching move goes awry, suddenly the best laid plans are useless and it's time to reset and try to salvage something out of the carnage.
Add to that the fact that many Amtrak routes cover significant distances, over multiple divisions, and the problem is compounded. An issue that is "nobody's fault" on one division may delay a train's arrival at a given point a couple of divisions over. Now that carefully laid strategy is toast.
I often have the opportunity to trainwatch at Utica, NY. One can almost always tell when Amtrak is due - freight traffic drops to near zero as the DS tries to keep everyone out of Amtrak's way. Add to that mix performance trains, like the "salad shooter," and things get really interesting, really fast.
I'm all for trying to keep Amtrak on time, but sometimes it's got to be a real challenge, even if the railroad is sympathetic to Amtrak.
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...
Bonas,
I know one thing that gives freight railroads a black eye is when passenger trains have to wait for freight trains. But I also know freight railroads believe they have strong reasons for doing this.
I would not presume to tell any person in business how to run his business. This is as true of freight railroads as any other business. So I do not criticize freight railroads when passenger trains have to wait.
John
How much is UP and CSX Spending on TV ads?
How much would it cost them to improve there dispatching to keep Amtrak on time?
Keeping 30 Million people happy a year should be good public relations.
PNWRMNMAs to bad press and the NIMBYS, it will always come and they will always be out there. Ignore it, ignore them and press on. The only alternative is to collapse into a pile of jello.
Mac,
Railroads are not going to go away despite bad press and NIMBY's. If freight railroads enter into the public conversation they may change some people's views for the better; if they do not enter into that conversation they will never change anyone's views.
I have heard some Amtrak riders criticize freight railroads because at time a passenger train must stop and wait for a freight train to pass. But honestly, those people are few and far between. One major point is that without the freight railroads there would be very few Amtrak trains even in the east and none west of the Mississippi river except for a few in California.
oltmannd PNWRMNM Lets go back to your original claim that the freight railroads should reach out to ATK passengers. I have two questions about that assertion. Why? or what benefit is in it for the freight carriers? How do you propose they "reach out"? Ooh! An easy one. Public good will is an important asset for the frt RRs these days. It helps the power battle going on between Congress, the STB and the railroads concerning regulation, for starters. It help improve the possibilities of PPPs, like getting CREATE funded and moving along. It helps balance out the negative press when a RR wants to build or expand a terminal (McCalla AL intermodal and Alexandria VA ethanol are two good examples)
PNWRMNM Lets go back to your original claim that the freight railroads should reach out to ATK passengers. I have two questions about that assertion. Why? or what benefit is in it for the freight carriers? How do you propose they "reach out"?
Lets go back to your original claim that the freight railroads should reach out to ATK passengers. I have two questions about that assertion.
Why? or what benefit is in it for the freight carriers?
How do you propose they "reach out"?
Ooh! An easy one.
Public good will is an important asset for the frt RRs these days. It helps the power battle going on between Congress, the STB and the railroads concerning regulation, for starters. It help improve the possibilities of PPPs, like getting CREATE funded and moving along. It helps balance out the negative press when a RR wants to build or expand a terminal (McCalla AL intermodal and Alexandria VA ethanol are two good examples)
Don and John,
I agree that public good will has value for freight rail. I have yet to be convinced that reaching out to ATK customers generates public good will. I believe that ATK is a very dirty window for the public to look at the freight carriers and that they loose more good will through ATK than they gain or could ever hope to gain. Passenger proponents are constantly criticizing the railroads for one perceived ill or another and are a major source of bad press.
As to bad press and the NIMBYS, it will always come and they will always be out there. Ignore it, ignore them and press on. The only alternative is to collapse into a pile of jello.
Mac
PNWRMNMOf course government is a burden on everyone. No news there!
And, Mac, when government burdens railroads with Amtrak it pays for that burden. In effect the Federal Government has taken an easement on some freight railroads' tracks in a process similar to condemnation. And it pays for that taking. Clearly, the government has the right to seize private property for a public purpose and the railroads have a right to be compensated. If the freight railroads believe the compensation is too low they do have recourse through the courts. Has any railroad sought such recourse? If it has then the railroads are getting the best deal available to them. If not the conclusion is pretty much the same.
The benefit of reaching out to Amtrak passengers is simply that both the Federal Government and the freight railroads are embedded in a larger society. One way for freight railroads to manage their relationship with government is to persuade the larger society that they are important to the society and they are benefiting the society by their own operations. But how can they do that? I think Amtrak riders are a group of people available and willing to be persuaded of how important freight railroads are to our society. And it is a group available to fright railroads. But if freight railroads themselves are unwilling to seek their own self interest why should anyone else do so?
As to how should freight railroads do this, I defer to Don's response which is better than any I could give.
PNWRMNMI spent my work life in the railroad industry. I suspect that I see far more detail than you do. Railroading is an economic activity that has suffered serious damage at the hand of an ignorant and hostile government. Outside of the NEC there is no credible case for passenger trains.
Well, me too! RR lifer. It'll be 35 years in 33 days.
But, I think you can make a pretty credible case for passenger trains in corridors outside the NEC. In particular, the day trains out of Chicago, California-Amtrak, and NEC extensions particularly into the southeast. Also, there is great opportunity in Florida.
In 1980, I would have agreed with you. But, not now. Times and places have changed.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
How do they do it? NS used a "full court press". Public steam excursions. Participation in National Train Day. OLS. TV commercials. Heritage locomotives.
It might be worthwhile to put some NS propaganda into Amtrak stations along their routes that would point out some of the industry and terminals along the way to further the message that RRs are making private investment that helps the economy.
PNWRMNMI do accept the argument that the NEC is a halfway credible competitor in its markets and I would listen to arguments that it generates positive externalities and could preclude expensive investment in more highways and airports. If all that is true, then let the affected states form a rail authority, transfer the NEC to them and let them do with it what they will. The NEC is a regional asset and should be paid for by the region.
That maybe a workable concept, but it has two chances. Slim and None. Getting Maine, NH, VT, Mass, RI, Conn, NY, NJ, PA, Del, MD, WV and VA to form an authority of shared power and costs is, uh, a "non-trivial" exercise. (Best proof? NJT and MNRR don't play well together. Neither do MARC and VRE) That's about 1/4 of the total number of states and disproportionally larger chunk of the population who are helped by the presence of the NEC. It really stretches the definition of "regional". A better term might be "mega-region".
If you start to look at the increasing number of places that the NEC interacts directly with the national air network, (BWI, ERK) and places where transit to NEC access exists or has been recently improved (PHL, JFK, Boston) plus the attempts to add a Harrisburg airport stop, it makes a pretty solid case for the NEC as a national asset, not a mega-regional one.
You could make a better case for Amtrak-California.
John,
Of course government is a burden on everyone. No news there!
No doubt, Mac, your life work has left you with a lot of insight I do not have. I have never worked for a railroad. However, the more I read your posts the more it appears to me we are talking about somewhat different things. You are arguing that today it makes no sense for freight and passenger service to share the same tracks and it didn't make sense in 1970 earlier. I am talking about public policy as it applies to transportation.
A response to your referenced to Albro Martin will have to wait until I can get the book from a local library. I don't own the book and I cannot from memory cite specific page references. However, bear in mind that I said it would make sense for freight railroads to reach out to Amtrak passengers as I believe it is in their interest. I did not say the the best way to operate a national rail passenger system is for freight and passenger service to share the same rails.
As far as Amtrak building and maintaining its own modern routes, there are limited where Amtrak is doing just that. But they are limited relative to the whole system. I think that there are many Amtrak supporters who would like to see Amtrak have its own routes. I also think that is just not going to happen in our lifetime given the cost of such an undertaking.
Your final statement, to the effect that Amtrak's compensation to freight railroads it uses, does not actually pay the costs they incur supplying the rail is about public policy. All I can say is that from time immemorial government has imposed certain burdens on property owners. Private citizens must pay to maintain the sidewalks in front of their homes although those sidewalks are public property. We must serve on a jury when summoned although many loose their earnings to do so. Private businesses must not only collect sales and excise taxes but also pay to maintain government required records and allow government to inspect those records in connection with those taxes. And, since 1970, the government imposes a burden on freight railroads to allow government use of their facilities for compensation that you believe is inadequate. Frankly, I think freight railroads receive favorable treatment relative to the rest of us because as citizens we receive no compensation at all for government imposed burdens. For example, I spend many hours each year on my income tax but there is no compensation for my time and I'm sure you don't get compensated for your time filling out tax forms either. Freight railroads do recieve some compensation which is a lot better that government treats the rest of us. And it has been ever thus.
Which part of Railroads Triumphant? Pages 129-131 about ATK creation, its mass cutting of routes, lack of reliability, negative impact on freight service, or HSR or maglev on new lines? Pages 141-143 about a slow detour due to freight derailment on worn out PC track? Page 345 discussing how FEC is passenger free and only one of two railroads to earn its cost of capital? Page 378 about ATK interference with freight operations or this sentence that sums it all up "In the long run Amtrak will have to build an maintain its own modern routes if the passenger train is to have a raison d' etre beyond that of a tourist attraction, a part of the market they still dominate."?
I regard the proposition that railroads are an efficient way to move passengers to be factually challenged. I believe that the industry is better off making its case for freight without any reference to passenger service, and that passenger service on the same line as freight significantly degrades the quality of freight service.
The days when traffic managers who routed freight rode passenger trains ended about 10 years before ATK. When they did, some in rail managements made the argument that since the government would not let them eliminate the passenger trains, they should run the best quality passenger trains possible as the quality of the passenger trains reflected on the entire railroad. This was known as the "clean window" argument. Today I can see no upside to a freight railroad operating passenger trains. In fact the downside exposure is much greater. The only good news is that the vast majority of ATK passengers have no idea who the underlying freight carrier is.
I do accept the argument that the NEC is a halfway credible competitor in its markets and I would listen to arguments that it generates positive externalities and could preclude expensive investment in more highways and airports. If all that is true, then let the affected states form a rail authority, transfer the NEC to them and let them do with it what they will. The NEC is a regional asset and should be paid for by the region.
I spent my work life in the railroad industry. I suspect that I see far more detail than you do. Railroading is an economic activity that has suffered serious damage at the hand of an ignorant and hostile government. Outside of the NEC there is no credible case for passenger trains.
If the government wants to run its trains on freight railroads it should adequately compensate them, which it does not today and never has. ATK is a misallocation of resources and an unnecessary burden on the economy.
PNWRMNMWhat evidence do you have that "Private railroads could do worse than reaching out to ATK riders"?
One piece of evidence I might cite is Railroads Triumphant by Albro Martin.
But be aware all that I am saying is that people who believe that railroads are an efficient way to move people are most likely easy to persuade that railroads are an efficient way to move freight. I think Amtrak riders are more inclined to see freight railroads as benefiting the society than the population as a whole is. And I think that is something freight railroads could build on to their own benefit.
To be really frank it is hard for me to comprehend your perspective. As I see it all railroads are essentially alike and either you believe in them or you don't. I know we disagree on this point and I wish I had a better understanding of your position than I do.
Well there are worse places to hold up 100,000.00
CSX more or less doubles in value every 5-7 years. BRK-B (BNSF) is at 111.00 up from the 80.00 I got it last year.
What evidence do you have that "Private railroads could do worse than reaching out to ATK riders"?
A McIntoshunder previous management. The one quality that I see in short supply at CSX is the one quality you see at NS. That is you need a true love of the business of railroading. This does not necessarily mean resurrecting historic paint schemes or a steam program, but exhibiting this passion in outreach to rail historical groups. CSX already does this with the B&O museum. It needs to expand on this.
Some Amtrak riders are active in rail historical groups. And all Amtrak riders believe rail passenger transportation is part of the solution to transportation problems in today's society. Private railroads could do worse than reaching out to Amtrak riders.
I believe you touched on a key difference between what makes a good railroad and what makes a great railroad. The management at CSX has accomplished much to increase capital investment that was neglected
The CSX board has bigger fish to fry. Remember the deal with the "Children's Fund" a few years ago.
As much as we'd like to see CSX be more fan-friendly, they are in the transportation business, as has been noted. Let's be glad that they're still in that business. Conjecture was that CF would have gutted the company of its assets and left the hulk to rot.
Leadership comes and goes. Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll get someone in who likes steam and old trains.
CSSHEGEWISCHSo you're willing to tie up at least $100,000 in somebody else's money to get a proxy vote on an issue that will probably be voted down overwhelmingly?
Seems to me he could accomplish about as much by having ONE share and going to the annual meeting a la Evelyn Davis to raise the question directly and demand a response. As noted, the large institutional holders of CSX stock are only going to approve some external traffic if (1) it produces higher marginal revenue relative to opportunity cost (here, the foregone use of the railroad's assets during the time the Greenbrier's train is using them) AND (2) the risk of damage to assets or delay of other traffic is minimized net of effective 'business interruption'-type insurance coverage. A proposal put before the Board that established all this would be much, much, much more effective... in any sense... than trying some proxy fight based on open access for foamer-type trips.
I can say that operation over the main with a steam locomotive is going to require EXTRAORDINARY measures of demonstrable, verifiable care for the above issues, and even more extraordinary amounts of persuasion. Not activism. Definitely not activism...
So you're willing to tie up at least $100,000 in somebody else's money to get a proxy vote on an issue that will probably be voted down overwhelmingly? As mentioned elsewhere, CSX is first and foremost a transportation business. It also does not have as high a profile as a business that deals directly with the public at large. A proxy vote like you suggest would be a waste of both time and money.
Good luck in your endeavor.
What if a group of railfans could pool enough shares of CSX to force a proxy to make them come up with a policy that would have written procedures that would allow railroad escusrions by groups like the NRHS?
SEC regs say thatyou only have to have 2,000.00 of shares to get something on the proxy ballot.
Its time to OCCUPY CSX. PETA has gotten KY Fried Chicken to change there policy so can we. If can get every railroad club in america to commit to some shares both real and model plus a personal apeal via a one page TRAINS mag ad then we can get them to pay attention.
note: as far as not typing in complete sentises libraryonly gives me 20min
edblysard Bonas, First, could you write a complete and understandable sentence, please? Spell check is not that hard to use either. Second, why shouldn’t the teachers have a say, after all, they are the majority shareholders, and that’s pretty much the way corporate structure works. Those groups basically own the majority of the company, shouldn’t they have a say in the business decisions, like who will head the company, stuff like that?. Railroads are, after all, for profit business, not railfan entertainment ventures.
First, could you write a complete and understandable sentence, please?
Spell check is not that hard to use either.
Second, why shouldn’t the teachers have a say, after all, they are the majority shareholders, and that’s pretty much the way corporate structure works.
Those groups basically own the majority of the company, shouldn’t they have a say in the business decisions, like who will head the company, stuff like that?.
Railroads are, after all, for profit business, not railfan entertainment ventures.
The problem I see with Directors on the boards of US corporations these days is that the feel their primary obligation is to show up at board meetings & conference calls so that they can collect their Directors Fee. No work and very little thought being required to rubber stamp the proposals of management for the operation of the company.
I have seen very little Directorial oversight in US corporations in recent years...right up until the proxy fight starts.
23 17 46 11
BonasYes
Thanks for the information, Bonas. I don't want to go around setting an agenda for other people. But it is good to be informed about who shapes the agenda.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.