CSX's 4Q and Full Year Results

[atrainguy60]

Saw this on Railway Age, thought some might find it interesting:

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/fin ... channel=44

[Racer]

"....CSX's operating ratio increased slightly to 71.1%, compared with 70.6% in 2012. CSX says it remains on target to sustain a high-60s operating ratio by 2015 and achieve a mid-60s operating ratio after that."

That somewhat worries me as they have cut their Michigan operations significantly over the past 7 years. Some of the current operations resulting in operating cuts have not worked very well (Mainly the Plymouth Sub operations) and it concerns me if the current method of getting the road trains to/from Toledo - Grand Rapids will lose customers. If they really want to cut their operation ratios, add a 3rd or 4th unit on Q334/Q335 instead struggling with 1-2 units and over 3 recrews.

[Saturnalia]

"....CSX's operating ratio increased slightly to 71.1%, compared with 70.6% in 2012. CSX says it remains on target to sustain a high-60s operating ratio by 2015 and achieve a mid-60s operating ratio after that."

Must be all those recrews collecting stalled out trains on the Plymouth Sub.

I don't know any solid numbers, but I don't think it would be too far from the truth to say about 50% of GRP traffic in and out is shortline-fed. By the time the CPMY, GRE, MQT, WMI and MS get their cars in, you've got a large chunk. Q334 usually has the MS block right on the headend. There is a reliable 20 cars right there! Not to mention Q334 also usually has a whole block of MQT cars, including sand, CC and Chemicals from Ludington.

Here is a pretty average Q334. 104 cars. I just watched it, and I got over 50 cars AT LEAST that came from either the MS or MQT.

[CSX_CO]

Must be all those recrews collecting stalled out trains on the Plymouth Sub.

Yeah, not hardly.

That recrew budget will get eaten faster up by a major terminal having expenses go up then a daily recrew for one train on a division. Again, I have my theories as to why those trains can never make it, and it has nothing to do with car count, locomotives assigned, etc.

For example. Last I knew, Avon is the most cost effective terminal on the system for humping a car. For every car humped, it costs CSX ~$10 (last I knew it was under that, somewhere around $9.50). That includes running the hump, pulling the cars, paying the yard crews, keeping the lights on, etc. I think the next closest terminal does it for like $12 or $14 a car, no one can come close to Avon's cost efficiency. If something *happens* at Avon, and our cost per car goes up, you're quickly looking at thousands of dollars in additional expenses (and associated lost profit) because of that. Average of 1500 cars a day, extra $1 per car, is another $1500 in expenses per DAY. That Q335 recrew probably costs somewhere around $600 on a given day, if it is even needed. <note>$600 is just a rough ball park estimate just based upon engineer and conductor rates of pay, plus cab costs, etc.

So, going further, that *possible* recrew cost is much less than it would cost to put another locomotive on there. I don't know what it 'costs' to run a locomotive for a 'day', but it is several hundred dollars a day. I do know that most leased engines average $100 per day and up if you're leasing them, and that doesn't include the fuel. Market is a bit soft, so some good deals to be had, but figure $100 a day is a 'rock bottom' lease rate. Plus, if the power planned is rated for the tonnage, and there are no failures, then what does that tell you about the train stalling? Tonnage ratings wrong? Some other forces at play (bad dispatching for example)? Again, it just amazes me that crews in other terminals can make longer runs, with the same HP to tonnage ratio on their trains, and still make it consistently. Why waste the engine for one or two hills, when that engine can be used to move other freight out of the terminal?

Practice Safe CSX

[Saturnalia]

Plus, if the power planned is rated for the tonnage, and there are no failures, then what does that tell you about the train stalling? Tonnage ratings wrong? Some other forces at play (bad dispatching for example)? Again, it just amazes me that crews in other terminals can make longer runs, with the same HP to tonnage ratio on their trains, and still make it consistently. Why waste the engine for one or two hills, when that engine can be used to move other freight out of the terminal?

Trains with good power hardly ever stall on the Plymouth Sub (if they do, they've got other problems like weather or bad air)...most of the trains that stall on the Plymouth sub have bad power. There are plenty of examples, including the whole Q334 mess last week. Most of the remainder is air problems [Q335-17]

I am NOT trying to raise a stink here, no sir. Again I agree with you---And I mean it makes sense. CSX doesn't want to clog up busier routes with trains that are having power issues. You need to have both Garrett Mains open, while in Michigan if a train stops for a few hours there are usually very few casualties. So all the GEVOs power the trains of the Garrett Sub, while the Michigan routes get more of the dash-8s and such. CSX has x power so they run it the most efficient way possible...that is to reduce the odds of issues on the key mainlines by keeping the less reliable power on the branchlines.

Now obviously the degree to which CSX maintains its roster or replace/rebuild older power is up to Jacksonville. But for the current state of the roster, the "junk" power is just more likely to end up in Michigan over Garrett or Avon because if problems come up you're not clogging it up.

That is in the administrative sense, anyway...

[CSX_CO]

Now obviously the degree to which CSX maintains its roster or replace/rebuild older power is up to Jacksonville. But for the current state of the roster, the "junk" power is just more likely to end up in Michigan over Garrett or Avon because if problems come up you're not clogging it up.

Wow. You think that much thought goes into it? Power is power. When it comes in, it gets assigned. Yes, the 'heavier' trains are going to get the better power, only because it is better power utilization. You've obviously never railfanned much outside of Michigan because 'junk' power is everywhere. A good power manager and trainmaster/yardmaster/whomever tailors the inbound power to match the outbound trains with a minimum of switching. You don't want to put two big AC44AH's on 2000 ton train (unless you HAVE to). Four axles are great 'kickers' for heavy trains, gives you additional HP without having to split up a 'big set'. Power managers don't go "That train goes to XXX I'm going to put junk on it".

"Junk" power is more apt to end up in GR because of the lack of grades (from most directions) into Toledo. Q218 (out of Avon) runs with SD40-2's a lot of the time because the tonnage isn't there (mostly return empties going back to Toledo/Detroit), so 'garbage in - garbage out'. I can't remember off hand what a SD40-2 will pull from Chicago, but its something like 8800 tons each. There again...no sense putting big engines on a train that doesn't need them.

Practice Safe CSX

[MagnumForce]

Now obviously the degree to which CSX maintains its roster or replace/rebuild older power is up to Jacksonville. But for the current state of the roster, the "junk" power is just more likely to end up in Michigan over Garrett or Avon because if problems come up you're not clogging it up.

That is in the administrative sense, anyway...

What are you smoking? That power is everywhere on CSX, even the mighty Garrett Sub. It would do you just awesome to think before you stick your foot in your mouth over and over and over and over again ad infinitum and admit that outside of your own little world, you are pretty clueless.

[Racer]

What are you smoking? That power is everywhere on CSX, even the mighty Garrett Sub. It would do you just awesome to think before you stick your foot in your mouth over and over and over and over again ad infinitum and admit that outside of your own little world, you are pretty clueless.

+1.

[CSX_CO]

What are you smoking? That power is everywhere on CSX, even the mighty Garrett Sub. It would do you just awesome to think before you stick your foot in your mouth over and over and over and over again ad infinitum and admit that outside of your own little world, you are pretty clueless.

The sad thing is that other people who are just as clueless, will take his word as 'the gospel'. He tries to make everything in this industry out to be rocket science, and it isn't. No matter how many times you try and tell him it is 'not that hard' he just doesn't get it.

Anyway, despite the 'soft' earnings, CSX stock is still up over $28. I can live with that for now. It means my initial $30 stock purchase in 2004, is now worth 6 shares at $28. Not a bad ROI for just under 10 years. CSX stock is about the only think in my portfolio that hasn't lost a ton of value in the last 5 years. It keeps growing.

Practice Safe CSX

[cbehr91]

Now obviously the degree to which CSX maintains its roster or replace/rebuild older power is up to Jacksonville. But for the current state of the roster, the "junk" power is just more likely to end up in Michigan over Garrett or Avon because if problems come up you're not clogging it up.

That is in the administrative sense, anyway...

I'll pick your brain further because this is just too much fun. Following your, ahem, "logic", what makes you think that power would end up in Avon? Indy is hardly a backwater city on CSX. Quite the opposite.

Basically, unit trains with lots of tons need heavies, van trains I think now need a leader with trip optimizer, which is limited to newer GEs. I know you never see van trains in GR so you wouldn't know this. Short haul slop freights can get older power everywhere, kid. I have seen Q356 (which is basically a long distance local between Willard and Collinwood) with an RCO equipped Geep leading two slug sets with some newer stuff behind it. If a terminal can spring power for another terminal short on power, or if something needs a 90 day inspection, it needs to be moved somehow.

[CSX_CO]

I'll pick your brain further. Following your, ahem, "logic", what makes you think that power would end up in Avon? Indy is hardly a backwater city on CSX, quite the opposite.

I think what he was trying to say was you WON'T see that 'junk' power in Avon because of that.

So, following that logic we should have brand new engines on everything. Nevermind that we act as a funnel for everyone to send their 'dead' engines through to get to Huntington, Cumberland, Selkirk, or Waycross. We have the 'distinction' of originating trains that eventually get to all four of the major system shops. Plus, we have an EMD 'light repair' shop too. No shortage of 'dead' or 'shop' engines coming to us. Some of which we can 'salvage' and put back into service for our outbound moves. Don't let me forget Q239 ends up with a "Pine Bluff" block on it. Q686 ends up at North Platte. Gee...I think the UP has a pretty heavy locomotive repair shops at those two locations too. So, we get plenty of 'dead' UP power coming to us to run back to the UP. Shoot, seems like 1/3rd of the UP power arrives to us dead already.

Anyway, I'm hearing rumors that some of the oil trains may be staying on a 'southern' routing back to the BNSF for awhile. Provided we have crews, I'm hearing going via Indy is 'three hours faster' than going to Chicago. I don't know if that is from like Buffalo to Chicago vs Buffalo to St. Louis (with a longer haul too). When we ran the 'test' "Apple" trains through Indy they were running 4 hrs faster between Cleveland and St. Louis vs Cleveland to Chicago, again for a longer haul. One of the 'test' trains ran St. Louis to Crestline (550 miles) in 8:30 run time. You'd be hard pressed to do Chicago to Willard (~285 miles) in that amount of time.

Bottom line is since the management change to Mr. Ward, CSX is finally starting to 'wake up' and realize its potential.

Practice Safe CSX

[Typhoon]

I am NOT trying to raise a stink here, no sir. Again I agree with you---And I mean it makes sense. CSX doesn't want to clog up busier routes with trains that are having power issues. You need to have both Garrett Mains open, while in Michigan if a train stops for a few hours there are usually very few casualties. So all the GEVOs power the trains of the Garrett Sub, while the Michigan routes get more of the dash-8s and such. CSX has x power so they run it the most efficient way possible...that is to reduce the odds of issues on the key mainlines by keeping the less reliable power on the branchlines.

Cool. It is nice to know that we will be only permitting newer power on the Garrett/Barr sub. I will not have to run these CP ethanol trains anymore with their POS DM&E SD40's that are not worth a crap.....

[JStryker722]

I am NOT trying to raise a stink here, no sir. Again I agree with you---And I mean it makes sense. CSX doesn't want to clog up busier routes with trains that are having power issues. You need to have both Garrett Mains open, while in Michigan if a train stops for a few hours there are usually very few casualties. So all the GEVOs power the trains of the Garrett Sub, while the Michigan routes get more of the dash-8s and such. CSX has x power so they run it the most efficient way possible...that is to reduce the odds of issues on the key mainlines by keeping the less reliable power on the branchlines.

Cool. It is nice to know that we will be only permitting newer power on the Garrett/Barr sub. I will not have to run these CP ethanol trains anymore with their POS DM&E SD40's that are not worth a crap.....

To be fair,CP ex DM&E SD40-2s isn't "home road " power to begin with.

[CSX_CO]

To be fair,CP ex DM&E SD40-2s isn't "home road " power to begin with.

DME (which CP bought), now working CP trains. Explain to me, since I have such a feeble mind and unable to comprehend such things, how those aren't 'home road'? DME only exists on paper (if even there) so CP is fully responsible for the 'crap' they put on their trains.

Good to know I can blame L&N, Clinchfield, Conrail, ACL, SCL, et al for all those CRAPPY engines CSX still has on the roster after all these years?

Practice Safe CSX

[JStryker722]

To be fair,CP ex DM&E SD40-2s isn't "home road " power to begin with.

DME (which CP bought), now working CP trains. Explain to me, since I have such a feeble mind and unable to comprehend such things, how those aren't 'home road'? DME only exists on paper (if even there) so CP is fully responsible for the 'crap' they put on their trains.

Good to know I can blame L&N, Clinchfield, Conrail, ACL, SCL, et al for all those CRAPPY engines CSX still has on the roster after all these years?

Practice Safe CSX

I mean they are foriegn power on CSX rails,not home road (CSX ) locomotives on CSX rails. That doesn't exactly fit in with whole " CSX junk vs. newer power assignments " argument.

[ns8401]

To be fair,CP ex DM&E SD40-2s isn't "home road " power to begin with.

DME (which CP bought), now working CP trains. Explain to me, since I have such a feeble mind and unable to comprehend such things, how those aren't 'home road'? DME only exists on paper (if even there) so CP is fully responsible for the 'crap' they put on their trains.

Good to know I can blame L&N, Clinchfield, Conrail, ACL, SCL, et al for all those CRAPPY engines CSX still has on the roster after all these years?

Practice Safe CSX

I mean they are foriegn power on CSX rails,not home road (CSX ) locomotives on CSX rails. That doesn't exactly fit in with whole " CSX junk vs. newer power assignments " argument.

All the DM&E power is owned by CP, CP seems to assign garbage power to its ethanol trains and then send them east, as such the power that the CSX guys have to run is junk, doesn't matter who's it is, and there is definitely no shortage of junk power on CSX. There is some newer stuff but even the AC4400's and AC6000's are 15-20 years old.

[heartlandguy]

All the DM&E power is owned by CP, CP seems to assign garbage power to its ethanol trains and then send them east, as such the power that the CSX guys have to run is junk, doesn't matter who's it is, and there is definitely no shortage of junk power on CSX. There is some newer stuff but even the AC4400's and AC6000's are 15-20 years old.

Not to mention if the CP/DME power gets yanked off the ethanol loads/empties somewhere in route, it can roam the system for days, weeks, or even months before it gets back to its home route, adding yet even more junk to the system.

As for CSX's stuff, this power is indeed everywhere. Garrett Sub, Indy Line, Toledo Sub, Pemberville Sub, Plymouth Sub, etc ALL have their share of junk running on trains. If power is sitting in an engine terminal, and it runs, it will most likely get assigned to a train (especially with power being somewhat tight right now). For example, many of the Dash-8s on CSX are 20-25 years old, but you still see them on most freights and lower priority intermodal trains today.

[cbehr91]

To be fair,CP ex DM&E SD40-2s isn't "home road " power to begin with.

How are they not? They're on the property now, and some were sold to DME by CP. A handful weren't even painted and are still candy cane red and white with 'DME' patches.

[StupidFlee​t]

Gr8 thread

[JStryker722]

To be fair,CP ex DM&E SD40-2s isn't "home road " power to begin with.

How are they not? They're on the property now, and some were sold to DME by CP. A handful weren't even painted and are still candy cane red and white with 'DME' patches.

They aren't CSX owned power.