Hmmm. That could be a tough one to answer with any authority. I suppose CSX fans will say one thing. NS fans another. Might need to see the statistical reports, and internal annual financial reports. Boxcab E50
Conrail shareholders. CSX and NS got taken to the cleaners with their bidding war and neither has really lived up to its true potential with the acquisition of Conrail. CSX was doing better early on but now NS has a larger share of traffic. In the future that'll reverse back and fourth a few more times.
I agree with you on your posting. I also believe CSX and NS will bounce back and forth with tonage and traffic volumes. Conrail, made a profit while in exsistence. I guess CSX, NS did not learn from the values of Conrail and how they operated. Matt [ February 26, 2006, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: Matt in liverpool ]
Most definately not. So much that Conrail did, especially the smallest details of day-to-day operations, seems to be lost on CSX and Norfolk Southern. "Conrail Quality" was something to be pround of but "CSX Quality" is more of a euphemism for words unmentionable on this forum.
I will say that NS mafe out better than CSX. NS was able to get Juniata Shops, which has made a difference in how things now work here in the south. They where able to somewhat manage the increase in the traffic in the south better than CSX was able to do. But it could have been lots worse, at least they did not loose track of complete trains in the yards like UP did when they got SP.
I agree with most. CSX did not get the better end in the deal. First of all, CSX, has very poor corporate structure. Infrostructure is just as bad as the CHessie System. "Conrail Quality" was a great plan. However, qality in terms of American railroads meant profit and reliablity. This is something, CSX, does not tend to believe in. Matt
I voted other to say "everyone." There's reasons for it to have stayed Conrail, there's reasons to say NS is doing better and there's reasons to say CSX is doing better. Based on what I have been reading in Trains magazine I would have to say that ultimately everyone will benefit.
Matt, I can't vote...you left out "BOTH" They both gained something...and what I can see and read was they mainly gained the North East If one was in an area, now the other gained access. I believe it was more of a mutual happiness. It also allows the northeast to be able to ship over one road. When the BN and ATSF Merged it was the same thing here on the west coast. Now shippers can send it over 1 line and 1 train....Before it was 3 (UP) Had a chunk of rail in there; but BNSF Made an agreement to buy part of the Keddie line to bridge the gap. Before( the agreement) they would have had to take it east to the Laual Mont. then South to Trinadad CO. then west to LA over the ATSF. Just my thoughts.. But for now I guess I'll say Other.
What realy bothers me is these large rail mergers in America. Lets look at it from this point of view. What does the small rail industry do to compete against, say BNSF or CSX? Will America only have three or four rail companies? Matt
Matt - Would you believe perhaps just 2 or 3 in all of the U.S. and Canada. In North America there does not seem to be any end to building multi-lane, limited access highways, or any type of highway or bridge. Politicians here (as in the U.K.) just can't seem to say no to special interest groups or be against "economic growth" (as they define it, of course). This is of course, socialized transportation competing against private industry, but not too many people seem to see it as such. So in the case I'm most familiar with (CSX), CSX is not so much competing against NS - but both of them are competing against the I-95's, I-40's, etc. of the Interstate highway system. As far as I know, no trucking company has a budget line for maintenance of way expense.
Yes. This is true. Having a little bit of inside knowledge on these things, the railroads use mergers for quickie profits, and capital infusion. Pumps them up in the eyes of investors. Eliminates direct rail competition. Brief benefits such as tax writeoffs, etc. But those quickly go away. Then they need to merge again. Problem here is they're running out of merger partners. They'd best get back to running businesses again. Put salesmen out there beating the brush. Re-establish more local agencies. Improve service. However, I don't see the smarts amongst their leadership, to realize this most critical need. And so those numbers of trucks continue to increase..... Boxcab E50
Boxcab E50 - I agree wiith you on the economic advantages to the surviving merger partner. But, and I don't think too many people get this - these gains are transitory and very, very subject to political considerations. However, the way railroads have configured themselves in the past 50 years, I don't see an end game for them. The wholesale abandonment of branch lines told me years ago that the doctrines of John Kneiling and others were being adopted - i.e. go for the "wholesale" end of the business, rather than the "retail". Too bad that they couldn't wait to see the outcome of Dr. Beeching's endeavors in the U.K, - same ideas, bad news for the railroads and in fact the general public.
In the next ten years, where will the rail industry be? I should say, how many major class one railroad companies be operating? I see alot of smaller railroads, operating here in New York, however; they all seem to interchange with CSX. Will these smaller rail companies grow or simply disappear in the next decade. Matt
Yes. And we the public will pay in the same way their population has suffered. Taxation and gross inconvenience. There's a lot that can learned from the past, from the mistakes of others. Sadly, the almighty fast back will outweigh those lessons, virtually every time. Boxcab E50 [ March 03, 2006, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: BoxcabE50 ]
