Eastern Railroad Discussion > Weird CSX routing

Today I saw CSX Q409 (Selkirk to Waycross) with a huge Richmond block. Well into the 175 car train consist were 50 empty CSXT black coal 'tubs', destination CMSCoal in Newport News. Now, why would empty coal cars move to Newport News by way of Selkirk? If anyone has CSX trace capability here are three car numbers near beginning, middle and end of the 50 car block. I'd really like to know where these car originated for this move. CSXT 400480, 377219, 400123.

"Precision railroading?" (I couldn't resist, considering my distaste for corporate buzz-words.)

Came off dock at Toledo. Y311 to Walbridge, Q264 to Cleveland, Q634 to Selkirk, Q409 to Richmond, H774 to Newport News

Is there import coal coming into Newport News? If not; if these head to the mines, why wouldn't they be dropped in Fulton?

inCHI Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is there import coal coming into Newport News? If
> not; if these head to the mines, why wouldn't they
> be dropped in Fulton?

Could just be for storage.

Empties will go to Newport News since that is where they build the empty trains.

But isn't that a really circuitous routing given the docks at Toledo are fed by the ex- C&O and so is Newport News by the shortest, all ex-C&O railroad mileage route for over a century? It is not 'Precision Scheduled' railroading. It is 'Precisely Stupid ' railroading. No way that Selkirk route for these 50 empty tubs could be cheaper moving that route.

when it doesn't have to be there tomorrow !

Ed Stewart
Jacksonville, FL

JLinDE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But isn't that a really circuitous routing given
> the docks at Toledo are fed by the ex- C&O and so
> is Newport News by the shortest, all ex-C&O
> railroad mileage route for over a century? It is
> not 'Precision Scheduled' railroading. It is
> 'Precisely Stupid ' railroading. No way that
> Selkirk route for these 50 empty tubs could be
> cheaper moving that route.

Remember the stories when EHH came to town about him letting people
go for giving the response "we have always done it that way" ?
Why would anyone dare suggest that the cars be routed the shortest,
least expensive way that they have been for 100 years?

Is this a Harbinger? Is traffic slowly being routed off the ex B&O over Sandpatch?

Posted from Android

May be far-fetched, but I have wondered about that myself. I could see traffic being routed off the B&O via Sandpatch and sent via Selkirk, especially if the decision has been made not to single track the former NYC. It would allow CSXT to cut costs by single tracking the B&O instead. It would also allow elimination of the Old Main Line due to reduced traffic levels from the West. EHH is likely not finished cutting costs. It would be easier and mire politically expedient to single track the B&O as there is only one daily Amtrak train each direction. Time will tell.

I have not been down to sand patch since last fall but do keep an eye on the sand patch cam regularly. It seems like over the past month or so the daylight merchandise traffic has virtually completely disappeared.

There still seems to be plenty of coal, auto, and intermodal but hardly any loose car manifest business.

I suppose it could all be running at night? Or has it been rerouted via selkirk? Or did CSX simply lose all the business? I'm curious to see how busy the line is when I head down there next month.

Posted from Android

Sounds like someone wants to make a few extra bucks by sending trains out of the way. Don't customers have to pay for how far or how long it takes the car to travel between point A and B? If it's either case, EHH is exploiting that by charging customers more to ship without raising rates.

SD80MACfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sounds like someone wants to make a few extra
> bucks by sending trains out of the way. Don't
> customers have to pay for how far or how long it
> takes the car to travel between point A and B?

No. Rate is same is regardless of how CSXT (or any carrier) moves it. Car load rates are just that - car load rate regardless how it moves. Mileage rates are based off shortest distance ON THAT RAILROAD. For example, on CSXT, Cincinnati to Indianapolis is 134 miles based on routing Toledo Sub to Hamilton OH and ex B&O Indianapolis Sub to Indianapolis. However, CSXT often runs this traffic up the Toledo Sub to Sidney OH, then onto the ex Conrail Indianapolis LINE Sub to Ridgeway, turn around, go back through Sidney and onto Indy - roughly 305 miles. They still only get 134 miles revenue.

As for the train in question, nobody pays CSXT to move empty CSXT equipment around. So to reposition these cars to Newport News is a sunk cost. So, filling out 3 road trains via Selkirk vs. running as an empty unit train direct down the C&O makes perfect sense if you believe that the 3 road trains can handle the cars without adversely impacting their normal traffic. You save a set of power and how many crew starts between Toledo and New Port News -3? 4? So even if you end up recrewing one of the monster trains, you come out ahead on the ledger.

scraphauler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cost. So, filling out 3 road trains via Selkirk
> vs. running as an empty unit train direct down the
> C&O makes perfect sense if you believe that the 3
> road trains can handle the cars without adversely
> impacting their normal traffic. You save a set of
> power and how many crew starts between Toledo and
> New Port News -3? 4? So even if you end up
> recrewing one of the monster trains, you come out
> ahead on the ledger.

I wonder what the increased costs are for switching these cars now since they are now separated in loose car trains as opposed to handling it as a single, unit train move. Isn't that the great thing about unit trains, very little car handling and switching??? But then again, EHH doesn't agree with hump yards being the most cost effective and efficient way of switching carload freight either...

Apparently, proven history means nothing to him???

I just would have thought empties already move south from Toledo towards the coal fields, and more could be tacked on. Then Q302 takes them Russell to Fulton, then the local to NN. These two would be existing trains being filled out.

Someday soon I hope to have some details and cost related info on some of the changes CSX has made to date. Usually RR's do make rates based on costs, unless they have revised the ancient probably out of date STB/ICC based Uniform Rail Costing System. But mileage moved is the biggest factor in any railway cost system, and probably all other forms of transport as well. For RR, industry switching cost is next, years ago on CR it was ~$4 a switch minute, and the average industry switch time per Ld/mty car was 19 min ($76 then) It would be more now. CR had switched minutes per industry for it's entire system, but they were old, and often too high. Often I had to 'fix' them, making them less thru a few phone calls to trainmasters and trainmen. (it is amazing how much you can learn from someone who actually does the job, year after year with virtually no supervision).

The URCS system has no distinction between flat and hump yards. They were called I&I switches, and then only about $10 per car. If EHH has comparative costs flat versus hump yards I'd sure like to know) There are no per mile savings for unit trains. It costs the same for 100 tons of stuff to move a mile in a unit train than in single car service. The savings for unit trains are in terminal switching, no I&I switches, and faster car turnaround for both shipper and RR equipment; which is the biggest deciding factors.

Rates after de-regulation 30 years ago can be published or private contract. Could be mileage based or not. If you have a contract who can know? The strange thing to me about some of EHH's routing decisions is that the routes he is trying to degrade still have to be there for other reasons. The ex-C&O coal route, used by AMTK, where the 50 mty tubs should have been routed rather than Selkirk. I'm sure a unit train of cars once emptied, or even stored, would be routed to WV via the old C&O. The B&O Sandpatch route has had recently millions spent on it for double stack clearances. It is very curvy, but from a grade standpoint it is better than NS's ex-PRR route to the Midwest. Once over Sandpatch, it is virtually water level or severe grade free all the way to Chicago, whereas NS has a few humps to overcome. If EHH could get rid of these two routes to justify the expense of Selkirk circuity, which I do not think he can during his tenure, then it I'd understand. Driver less trucks and other unknown future loom ahead. Keep a mainline, do not downgrade it. It's not 1960s=1980's when that had to be done. Not now.

scraphauler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SD80MACfan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Sounds like someone wants to make a few extra
> > bucks by sending trains out of the way. Don't
> > customers have to pay for how far or how long
> it
> > takes the car to travel between point A and B?
>
> No. Rate is same is regardless of how CSXT (or
> any carrier) moves it. Car load rates are just
> that - car load rate regardless how it moves.
> Mileage rates are based off shortest distance ON
> THAT RAILROAD. For example, on CSXT, Cincinnati
> to Indianapolis is 134 miles based on routing
> Toledo Sub to Hamilton OH and ex B&O Indianapolis
> Sub to Indianapolis. However, CSXT often runs
> this traffic up the Toledo Sub to Sidney OH, then
> onto the ex Conrail Indianapolis LINE Sub to
> Ridgeway, turn around, go back through Sidney and
> onto Indy - roughly 305 miles. They still only
> get 134 miles revenue.
>
> As for the train in question, nobody pays CSXT to
> move empty CSXT equipment around. So to
> reposition these cars to Newport News is a sunk
> cost. So, filling out 3 road trains via Selkirk
> vs. running as an empty unit train direct down the
> C&O makes perfect sense if you believe that the 3
> road trains can handle the cars without adversely
> impacting their normal traffic. You save a set of
> power and how many crew starts between Toledo and
> New Port News -3? 4? So even if you end up
> recrewing one of the monster trains, you come out
> ahead on the ledger.

Actually if you use private cars, there is a cost to the shipper.  Longer empty moves means more cars needed.  This is a cost that is based on time and not miles.  I have always found it interesting that many costs in transportation are calculated in miles yet many of the cost components are charged on the basis of time (equipment, fixed cost, etc.).   

Not sure what you mean. SOME of the class 1 carriers charge empty on own wheels to move empty car to loading location if that empty car does not have a previously loaded move on that carrier. That was not case in this example as cars were CSXT mark. As for loads, the railroads usually give a discount off RR car rate to freight payers who zero mileage, zero per diem private cars (one carrier give a quarterly rebate). Only time private cars cost more than RR cars are if you are paying the car owner a premium to use the car.

Posted from iPhone

scraphauler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not sure what you mean. SOME of the class 1
> carriers charge empty on own wheels to move empty
> car to loading location if that empty car does not
> have a previously loaded move on that carrier.
> That was not case in this example as cars were
> CSXT mark. As for loads, the railroads usually
> give a discount off RR car rate to freight payers
> who zero mileage, zero per diem private cars (one
> carrier give a quarterly rebate). Only time
> private cars cost more than RR cars are if you are
> paying the car owner a premium to use the car.
>
> Posted from iPhone

I am talking about the additional cost to the shipper, not about the railroad charging the shipper or the cost to the carrier.  I am talking about the lease cost of the car (the cost of capital) which is an expense to the shipper. 

As an example, if the railroad gives a "normal" transit time of 10 days one way.  Assume loading and unloading each take 5 days each, you can expect a cycle of one load every 30 days or 12 loads per year per car.  If you consume 2 cars per week, you need a minimum of 8.33 or 9 rail cars.

If the railroad starts saying "well they are only empties" and adds 5 days to each return, you now have a 35 day cycle.  The shipper now need to add two rail cars to the fleet due to the lost days.  This means 11 cars.  If using expensive cars like PD 5500's, it will cost over $850 per month per car.  Thus you have added $20,000 of addition rail car expense to your material delivery cost.

Just an example to illustrate my point.

 



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/17 12:44 by NYSWSD70M.