Talk:CSX Transportation

CSX external links

After adding it I found it had been previously removed and I was unwittingly reversing that, why was it removed in the first place, leaving only an anti-company website? - Wikiacc 23:41, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Locale, Massachusetts

Why isn't Massachusetts listed in the Locale section? Siliconwafer

Must have been overlooked. It's there now. slambo 12:05, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Division Section

The Divisions are getting a bit large, can we break them down further so that each division is its own section. It will make editing a little easier, and also show areas that we need to work on as well. Rob110178 07:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Notes

From 1986 to 1991 CSX Transportation was a holding company for CSX Rail Transport, CSX Distribution Services and CSX Equipment - see Trains November 1991 --SPUI (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Can someone place the following wherever it belongs (i.e., prev. top company executives? )

Arnold I. Havens (Arnie) [2/21/06-Currently the General Counsel of the U.S. Department of the Treasury] used to “serve as Senior Vice President of Government Affairs for CSX Corporation (CSX) where, from 1995 until 2003, he was responsible for providing advice and counsel on transportation-related issues and representing the company’s interest before public officials. In that role, he managed federal and state affairs for CSX and its transportation and non-transportation interests including CSX Transportation and its 23-state freight rail network. On October 29, 2003, Mr. Havens was nominated to be General Counsel of the Department of the Treasury by President Bush, confirmed by the Senate on December 9, 2003, and sworn in by Secretary John Snow on December 18, 2003. In addition, Mr. Havens had the privilege of serving as Special Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs. Between 1991 and 1993, he represented President George H.W. Bush before the Congress on issues of concern to the President and his Administration with a focus on regulatory reform and transportation. As General Counsel of the Department, Mr. Havens serves as the chief legal advisor and a senior policy adviser to the Secretary of the Treasury.” [taken from U.S. Office of General Counsel of the Treasury: http://www.treas.gov/offices/general-counsel/general-counsel.shtml [Mr. Havens is the attorney who advised and approved of outsourcing 6 United States shipping ports to a foreign owned Dubai company]

CSX Corporation

Why are CSX Corp. and CSX Transportation different articles?

It's because CSX Corp. is the parent company that owns, among other things, CSX Transportation, CSX Intermodal, Chessie Computer Services, and The Greenbriar. CSX Transportation is a big part, but it's still just a part. Kweston 12:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Rollback reason

There are too many executives of any railroad to keep lists of all the positions through time. Trains WikiProject standards are to include succession lists of only the Presidents/CEOs of a railroad. Slambo (Speak) 16:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Predecessors

Why is List of CSX Transportation predecessor railroads a separate page? It seems reasonable include that information here. It's interesting, is fairly short, and fits with the guidance from Wikiproject Trains.

As to whether CSX Transportion and CSX Corporation should have separate pages, I could argue that they should. One is a railroad and one is the holding company the owns the railroad. Just keep the right content on the right page, and it's all good.

And why is this page associated with Wikiproject Georgia? Seems like a stretch to me. XKL 20:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The list is on a separate page because it's already getting too long to keep in this article, especially if we're working toward getting this up to anywhere near FA level. There are quite a few more predecessor lines that could be added there, and keeping it on a separate page keeps the information without being overly burdensome here. Slambo (Speak) 10:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

The sentence "It also happens to be the BEST railroad to work for EVER!!!!" In the last part of the introduction needs to be cited or removed as it is more opinionated than than is appropriate for encyclopedic purposes. Being new to the Wikipedia community I felt I should leave the comment in pending further review from more experienced users. TribalMoo 03:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral?

I live in an area of upstate NY where we've had quite a few CSX crashes, many deadly, some were only not deadly by sheer luck. I want to know if this article is truly "neutral" with no mention of any of CSX's recent failures in the area of safety. Rachaella 00:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Reading through the railroad press, it seems to me that CSX has had about an average number of derailments and other accidents when compared to the other Class I railroads currently operating. While some discussion of what CSX is doing to try to improve may be warranted, I don't think they're doing an overly terrible job when compared to the number of accidents that occur on other railroads. CSX wasn't awarded the Silver E.H. Harriman Award this year (and Bronze last year) for nothing, after all. Slambo (Speak) 16:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

System Map

Where did the system map come from? I was trying to find/create one for the Heart of Dixie RR Museum page. Modestly Yours, Ferrous 13:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

corporate infobox

i added a corporate infobox with key people and company stats. So far only the CEO is covered, but im sure we could add more ppl. Paco8191 02:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hump Yard Errors

Three of the entries seem erroneous to me:

CSXT's only yard in East St Louis is Rose Lake Yard, which is not a hump. "East St Louis" Yard is owned by the KCS, formerly GWWR, and has had its hump ripped out. The two humps that are in ESL are owned by the TRRA (Madison) and ALS (Gateway).

The only CSXT Hump near Albany is Selkirk - which is already mentioned in this list.

And I believe Walbridge Yard has had its hump ripped out, leaving only Stanley in Toledo with a hump, and Walbridge is now a base for Autorack sorting?

And the text line "The larger yards are located in:" and title "Major Hump Yards" seem silly to me - this looks like a comprehensive list of CSXT's humps, not just larger ones.

Danny252 (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I took Albany off the list at least. I'm guessing people less familiar with the area keep confusing it with Selkirk. n2xjk (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Oak Island isn't a flat-switching yard. It has a functional hump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.113.204 (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Naming

The 150 word paragraph (except the last sentence) on naming could be reduced to a short sentence. Yes, when I came to the article I wanted to know what CSX meant. It's enough to say lawyers picked it with it having any special meaning.

It's not easy to read, and really doesn't say much about the railway. It gets in the way.

Also, the whole paragraph has no citations.

24.130.9.210 (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[1] is listed in the references, and appears to support that whole paragraph. --NE2 17:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The referenced link now gives a 404 error. However, in a recent column on the Railway Age website, new information is given on the reason the X was chosen. I am updating thise part of the article with the new information and reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by No hazmats (talk • contribs) 15:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Nov 2008, New Info

The Bethlehem Branch is like a spec on the CSX yard map. Probably the least known of thier branches, since everyone thinks the location is NS territory. There is a local CSX Locomotive #B738 a GP40-2 Ref. Video at YouTube; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTJ12FILen0 Have a Better Day. UBUIBIOK (talk) 06:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

CFN/CSX Fiber Networks

There was one link to this under the 'See Also' section, that linked to an outside site. As far as I can tell CFN is no longer associated with CSX, and for that link to be put under 'See Also', there would have to be a reference to it in the article, right?

-K² —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaseman519 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

trains can move a ton of freight 436 miles on a single gallon of fuel

CSX brags about this claim on their website and NPR and I want to know if it is true and how it is true before I put it in the CFX article. After all, this is better than a hybrid.

The fact is, our trains can move a ton of freight 436 miles on a single gallon of fuel. Can you beat that?

Septagram (talk) 04:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I still have not found the facts behind this claim. Does anyone else know the facts behind the claim?Septagram (talk) 03:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if the ES40/44s could. GE's brochure says that they are extremely fuel efficient. Coasterlover1994^{Leave your mark!} 04:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope that is sarcasm because their efficiency claims are. . . fantastic and should be looked into to make sure CSX is not being overly modest.Septagram (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

On 09/15/10, NPR CSX now claims "our trains can move a ton of freight nearly 500 miles on a single gallon of fuel". Wow! How do they do this?Septagram (talk) 03:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

http://www.csx.com/index.cfm/about-csx/projects-and-partnerships/fuel-efficiency/ They calculate how many Revenue Ton-Miles divided by fuel consumption. Basically they move a 5000 Ton train 468 miles using 5000 gallons of diesel fuel, it just sounds better to say we move 1 ton of freight 468 miles on a single gallon of fuel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.231.208.128 (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

References

Attribution

Mgrē@sŏn 20:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC

Incorrect Information

This statement from the lead paragraph, "CSX operates one of the three Class I railroads serving most of the East Coast, the other two being the Norfolk Southern Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway," leaves the impression that CSX owns CPR. This is definitely not the case. 74.14.180.220 (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

List of locomotives/horns

I have removed the laundry lists of locomotives and horns in the article's section on CSX locomotives. I hope this is okay.--Zxnelo (talk) 06:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Relevancy of Crazy 8's

I don't think that the CSX 8888 incident deserves a mention on this page, let alone a whole section. All Class I railroads have had a number of incidents and accidents in their histories, and CSX is no exception. Putting it in Category:CSX Transportation seems like enough for me.--Hell on Wheels (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

agreed. And why is it in the Critism section? Talltim (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

There being no objections after almost a year, I shall remove the section.--Hell on Wheels (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, someone objects [2]. Tell ya what, let's just include a link to this and any other accidents notable enough for an article. CSX has probably had hundreds of fatal incidents since the merger, the one in question was neither fatal, nor did it even damage property. A link is surely enough.--Hell on Wheels (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on CSX Transportation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110129015703/http://www.csx.com/index.cfm/about-csx/company-overview/ to http://www.csx.com/index.cfm/about-csx/company-overview/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Locomotives section

99% of this section is sourced to absolutely nothing and is either original research or railfan lore. I think the overly detailed template would apply quite well here: "This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience" (especially "paint and aesthetics"). If slimmed down to only what can be reliably sourced, there would be maybe three sentences. This section is easily the worst part of this article and in its current state, I don't think it can stay. Ironmatic1 (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I just nuked the entire paint schemes section, with the exception of 2 sentences that actually had a reliable source. Arguably more can be cut, but it's a good start at least. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm gonna try cleaning the wall of unsourced text up as much as I can. I'll look for sources, but this stuff is hard to source because this kind of knowledge is typically passed on forums and social media. Ironmatic1 (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Merging CSX Transportation and CSX Corporation into CSX

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

These two articles don't seem to be big enough to stand on their own, as it just seems like a larger article on a corporation split into two sections forked unnecessarily. Most of the content except for the History sections lack the need for excessive work. Since the two big meanings of CSX on Wikipedia today are merged, I would also take this time to propose that the newly merged article could take the title of CSX, which is currently a redirect to CSX Transportation. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose CSX Corporation has some distinct differences from CSX Transportation, particularly its real-estate holdings. The CSX Transportation article is also in need of major expansion. I have long-term plans to do this. It is also worth noting that while CSX Corporation was formed in 1980, CSX Transportation was not formed until 1986. They are distinct companies and there is enough to say that we can absolutely maintain separate articles on both entities. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  Recently I was reviewing a months-old proposal I made for merging Dow Inc. and Dow Chemical Company, and the sole opposer said that he/she/they would work on improving Dow Inc. even though it was a stub back then. Still a stub today (no work/improvements done since), and two editors since have supported a merger, mostly using how General Motors is all one article. While I understand it might be premature to make this judgement, I seriously think that this might happen again with the CSX articles. Unless you're willing to WP:DIY and expand both articles to levels where they reasonably should stand on their own, I have reason to doubt that they will be expanded. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  I personally own a copy of "CSX" by Brian Solomon. That alone gives me more than enough material to massively expand the CSX article, and I do intend to expand the article. Don't believe me? Check my other work on my userpage. Regardless, I am of the opinion that a merge is not called for, there are too many things to say in the CSX Transportation article, and several aspects of CSX Corporation don't make sense to include in CSX Transportation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom Brulucas (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
• Comment "CSX" by Brian Solomon discusses several other subsidiaries under CSX Corporation, including CSX Energy and CSX Property. CSX Technology [3] [4] is an active company under the CSX Corporation banner. SeaLand was owned by CSX Corporation for more than a decade. CSXC also had control of American Commercial Barge Lines [5]. The support votes here are ignoring the fact that CSXC was for many years involved in a lot more than just railroads. There is a clear need for these subjects to be covered in the CSXC article; they are out of place at CSX Transportation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe a new article called History of CSX could cover these ventures if for some reason they turn out to be relative permastubs? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

  Do you know what a permastub is? From Wikipedia:Stub: Over the years, different editors have followed different rules of thumb to help them decide when an article is likely to be a stub. Editors may decide that an article with more than ten sentences is too big to be a stub, or that the threshold for another article may be 250 words. Others follow the Did you know? standard of 1,500 characters in the main text, which is usually around 300 words. Neither article is remotely near a stub. CSX Corporation is 1,579 words. CSX Transportation is 1,690, and it's way below the length it should be, given the extensive coverage that exists of CSX. It just hasn't been expanded yet.

  Nashua and Lowell Railroad is 1,123 words, do you think that's a stub too, even though it's a GA? I literally own a 150 page book just about CSX. How could something that has that much coverage be a "permastub"? A History of CSX article could certainly be written, but that doesn't change the fact that CSX Corporation merits its own article. Even if it's merged, I'll just have to split it out again when I expand CSX Transportation, so it's just a waste of people's time to do so. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

  I'm talking about the other ventures, not the corporation or the railway division itself. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

  I wasn't suggesting they should have their own articles. They should be within CSX Corporation, which is one of several reasons a merger is a bad idea. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Trainsandotherthings, as well as per notability and coverage guidelines. I'd imagine CSX Transportation gets plenty of significant coverage to stand on its own. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 03:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Establishment of CSX Transportation

CSX Transportation was established on January 26 1944 as the second Seaboard Air Line railroad under the name Seaboard Air Line Railroad (Company) and replaced the first Seaboard Air Line railroad in 1946; it changed names later to Seaboard Coast Line Railroad (Company) and then to Seaboard System Railroad (, Inc.) before assuming its current name.

That's a technicality. Much like how the Pennsylvania Railroad was the nominal survivor of the Penn Central merger, Seaboard Coast Line Industries was the nominal survivor of the Chessie - SCLI merger. For all intents and purposes, CSX was formed in 1980. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed merge of New York Central Lines LLC into CSX Transportation

This entity only ever existed on paper as part of the implementation of the Conrail split. There is very little that can be said about it, and that minimal information should be placed in the CSX article, which is where the New York Central Lines LLC rail lines went. I have proposed a merger of Pennsylvania Lines LLC into NS for the same reason. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. No need for a separate article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Support Granthew (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. I agree that we don't need that stand-alone article, but I'm unsure about the merge target. What about a new article, something like List of Conrail lines conveyed to CSX Transportation? Mackensen (talk) 11:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Mackensen: If we were to do that, I'd prefer one article for CSX and NS. Even better, a dedicated article about the split of Conrail instead of just a list. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  Breakup of Conrail, with both articles redirecting for attribution purposes? Mackensen (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  What about merging New York Central Lines LLC and Pennsylvania Lines LLC to Conrail Shared Assets Operations? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  That would be a poor choice, as both entities consisted of lines not included in Conrail Shared Assets. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, something along those lines. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support as initially proposed; Pennsylvania Lines LLC has already merged to Norfolk Southern Railway (parallel discussion elsewhere), so having a merge of New York Central Lines LLC into CSX Transportation (where it would neatly as a subsection of Conrail acquisition) maintains a symmetric approach. Klbrain (talk) 14:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  Comment -- I'm starting to like this a little less. The New York Central Lines LLC article contains a list of lines that were specific to New York Central Railroad and Pennsylvania Lines LLC should have had this kind of list. I'm starting to think Mackensen's suggestion for the Breakup of Conrail article is the better alternative. -------User:DanTD (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)