Eastern Railroad Discussion > CSX service problems

http://www.coalage.com/news/latest/5677-murray-energy-asks-for-stb-assistance-with-csx-service-delays.html#.WXQGZGIrLIV

Hope this is the beginning of folks speaking out!

mundo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hope this is the beginning of folks speaking out!

Agree'd!

SouthWest RailCams
CA, NM, CO, TX, AZ
https://SouthWestRailCams.com

mundo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hope this is the beginning of folks speaking out!


Would speaking out really accomplish anything? Doesn't a dictator just execute those who speak out against him? (I.E., Hunter and the rest of the RR just ignore the customers who are unhappy?)

Do not know this coal company but it is sad a coal customer is upset with CSX when coal traffic is down so much. But the comment that 'the Government made CSX a monopoly is rather not true. Especially if his mine(s) are on non-former Conrail lines. There is more than a half century of history that shows in most areas one RR serves a mine even tho others may be close. That was dictated primarily by geography not allowing two railroads in the narrow valleys and forecasts of the available traffic which might make two railroads unnecessary. There were, and still are, many interchanges among competing railroads, and coal is a regulated commodity. And after good roads were provided by "governments" to compete with railroads in many areas of Appalachia that was available. But worse service is almost a given with the past record of CSX's current regime.

Per the article it looks like Murray Energy has not been satisfied with CSX service well before Hunter's arrival. Seems like Murray is exploiting a claimed worsening of CSX service under Hunter not because they want to return to their previously bad service but because Murray wants the STB to implement reciprocal shipping. Ironically, not that long ago when EHH unsuccessfully sought a CP-CSX merger, he offered up reciprocal switching as a sweetener to shippers who didn't want CP management running CSX. And here we are with EHH running CSX...

This company is the owner of the former Consol mines at Robinson Run and Loveridge mines now called Harrison County mine and Marion County mine. Robinson Run is captive to CSX ,while Loveridge has access to both CSX and NS.

Randy

Murray Energy is known as a hard ball player. Tough people.

Posted from Android

Reciprocal Switching is no panacea. In the USA, it is available in certain metropolitan areas with defined switching limits that go way back in history often a hundred years or more. Outside those defined limits, there was no Reciprocal Switching and common carrier interchange had to be used to get cars from one carrier to another. Before De-regulation, reciprocal switching rates were very low, often below $100/car back in the 1970s. That enabled other carriers to move a captive carrier's industry business to their own lines for a reasonable charge and maybe only one or two days longer service. This was a real problem in the PC and early Conrail days when many shippers thought PC and CR service was bad, even tho in many cases it was not so bad. But the salesman from NW, Chessie, GTW and Erie could sell it. But after de-regulation things changed. Railroads could charge what they wanted for reciprocal switching, but they could not cancel it. Within a short period of time CR's Reciprocal Switch rate went up to $396 per car, negating its revenue advantage, and with improved service mostly stopped it in major industrial areas. Recip switching still exists; and in some areas like Chicago where a lot of industry is on established switching carriers, like BRC, owned by all or some of the connecting RR's. But they are free to negotiate special rates with any connecting carriers.

In Canada they have a different arrangement, which is called 'inter switching'; where in locales where 2 RR's serve cars can be interchanged for some fee (unknown to me) within a 30 mile, (or is it 30km, about 18.5 mile radius.) But I hear it is not used much. Service is too slow versus straight line haul.

The notion that some coal shipper can get reciprocal switching to some mine up a hilly hollow somewhere in the hills of Appalachia is rather far fetched and impractical. Negotiate an agreeable rate under the terms of the Staggers act as many have done; and later if you do not like it, protest before the STB but have a lot of ample proof.

JPB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Per the article it looks like Murray Energy has
> not been satisfied with CSX service well before
> Hunter's arrival. Seems like Murray is exploiting
> a claimed worsening of CSX service under Hunter
> not because they want to return to their
> previously bad service but because Murray wants
> the STB to implement reciprocal shipping.
> Ironically, not that long ago when EHH
> unsuccessfully sought a CP-CSX merger, he offered
> up reciprocal switching as a sweetener to shippers
> who didn't want CP management running CSX. And
> here we are with EHH running CSX...

I agree. Be careful here reading this as being entirely about a service meltdown at CSX, and an initial shipper public black mark against EHH. Restrain the glee; no gloating. Murray is angling for something more here, no matter how bad their service was previously, and however it may have worsened recently under Harrison's administration.

My initial reaction reading the headline and the article's lede was: Trouble for EHH. Anytime a shipper files a formal complaint letter with the Surf Board, it's starting to get serious. But after reading the whole article, I think its more of an initial salvo aiming for something else.

I'm no EHH fanboy. I have serious concerns about CSX. But this is one where we need to turn over that big lump of Murray Energy coal to see what's really underneath.

MC
Muskegon, Michigan

these are the same coal guys who are suing Stephen Colbert (and have a history of suing everyone who doesn't kiss up to them).