Is CSX going to sell?

NellsChoo wrote:I keep hearing from people that CSX is doing bad. They seem alright to me, compared to the short lines!

Then again, what do I know? But if they can buy brand new engines, they must have some money... or are the leased?

If They got the money to buy new locos it must have come by way of not puting money into there track. You should see the large chuck of rail I saw missing out of a frog in one of there switches I got plenty of pics Insted of buying or leaseing locos they should invest in track work. Its begining to look like the Penn Central Days again!

Robert Paniagua wrote:---Just a thought---

Imagine if CSX merged someday with Guilford Rail System. This would create a big entity from Maine to Virginia and as far west as Ohio, but I haven't heard of CSX mixing with GRS.

Any thoughts?

Yeah. Robert, wouldn't ithe combination of CSX and Guilford Rail System create a bigger entity from Maine to the southern tip of Florida, and as far west as Chicago and St. Louis?

I don't believe that you were thinking big enough!

ACLfan

ACLfan wrote:

Robert Paniagua wrote:---Just a thought---

Imagine if CSX merged someday with Guilford Rail System. This would create a big entity from Maine to Virginia and as far west as Ohio, but I haven't heard of CSX mixing with GRS.

Any thoughts?

Yeah. Robert, wouldn't ithe combination of CSX and Guilford Rail System create a bigger entity from Maine to the southern tip of Florida, and as far west as Chicago and St. Louis?

I don't believe that you were thinking big enough!

ACLfan

LOL true. Seems Rob missed some other southern states that CSXT serves.

Seriously though, CSX needs a major overhaul like Amtrak.

Gee Whiz! This thread of discussion has really been interesting! I'm sure that it turned out to be quite different than Sammy (the starter) imagined!

For me, I guess the most surprising thing has been that a former railroader can be accused of being anti-railroad employee in his views by someone who doesn't know him for no other reason than for taking an objective view on an issue, rather than a one-sided, extremely biased position! Oh well! Such is life!

But, that's a characteristic of a democracy -- the right to share your opinions! And, the fact that this website provides an opportunity to share opposing opinions is one thing that makes it so good. This thread contains a treasure chest of opposing opinions and different perspectives, all of which contain valid points.

Good going!

ACLfan

FWIW.

Living in State College this is the heresay on Joe Paterno and his salary

1) He has been coaching from the period where coaches were actually faculty in the Physical Education Dept, hence he is a fully tenured professor, why people are very wary of calling for him to go.

2) He donates his salary back to PSU and they have several buildings named after him.

3) His PR value alone brings him more that enough money to live on, so I would agree with point #2.

Brooks

Yeah but -- State College still doesn't have passenger rail service....

I guess I didn't make this clear -- but my point was that people get paid large sums of money based on a variety of factors.

It used to be a corporate executive was compensated according to the increases in revenue, or cost savings, or share value increase her/his executive decisions brought about. That's not necessarily the case these days. Things are out of whack in this regard, with the above mentioned railroad execs as examples.

Joe Pa does not fall in this category, for sure.

Snoozer's quoting from the UTU website? Now THAT's objective reporting! How much does Paul Thompson, the president of the UTU make annually, by the way? I'm guessing he doesn't drive a Saturn.

LCJ wrote:Yeah but -- State College still doesn't have passenger rail service....

neither do Nashville, TN and Phoenix, AZ

state college, PA is nowheresville

whats your point, and specifically what does this have to do with anything being discussed here?

Neither does Oatmeal, TX -- and that's really nowheresville.

What's your point? Lighten up, dude.

Aintcha got no sense a humah? Doncha sense no tongue-in-cheek?

Oh boy, it is off the union web site, that must mean that it has no credibility! Does it have as much credibility as Norman Minettta and G.WYA.!

With that I shall bow to your infinite wisdom, remain silent and become a victim like a majority of the American work force! 'If I can't have it, no one should have it' sounds like your motto regarding the efforts of workers to organize and protecct their interests.

Good bye and good luck!

I never said the UTU doesn't have credibility... just a slanted opinion. Snoozer, I merely asked the question about how much the UTU pays their President... seems a fair question since you were happy to talk about RR CEO salaries. So before you go away, would you care to answer the question?

Mr. Weaver--

I have enough to do over UNOWARE keeping "law and order" to enable me to visit this Forum with any frequency.

I'm pleased to note, you being a BLE Member even retired, that you recognize here the November 27, 1972 "Manning and Training' Agreement between Carriers represented through the Conference and the UTU(F), the "good' that Agreement brought to the industry.

I worked with the implementation of that Agreement on MY road, and I believe it represented great statesmanship on the part of the former BLF&E that the craft they represented was simply redundant within the industry.

'Manning and Training" acknowledged that the "Fireman" position had to be a means to train Locomotive Engineers. Surely you knew a "career Fireman' or two during your service. At that time, there was still compassion for a man who chose not to move on. Today however, nobody hires on with the intent of only going to ride a train at 90% pay of the guy who is driving it.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:Mr. Weaver--

I have enough to do over UNOWARE keeping "law and order" to enable me to visit this Forum with any frequency.

I'm pleased to note, you being a BLE Member even retired, that you recognize here the November 27, 1972 "Manning and Training' Agreement between Carriers represented through the Conference and the UTU(F), the "good' that Agreement brought to the industry.

I worked with the implementation of that Agreement on MY road, and I believe it represented great statesmanship on the part of the former BLF&E that the craft they represented was simply redundant within the industry.

'Manning and Training" acknowledged that the "Fireman" position had to be a means to train Locomotive Engineers. Surely you knew a "career Fireman' or two during your service. At that time, there was still compassion for a man who chose not to move on. Today however, nobody hires on with the intent of only going to ride a train at 90% pay of the guy who is driving it.

I do not recall having much to say on here regarding any 1972 agreement
regarding firemen or whatever.
I was affected in 1964 with the arbitration award 282 when the firemen
were taken off nearly all freight and yard jobs. I do give the BLF&E full
blame for this mess in the first place. I think for the most part, the
fireman on a yard job could have been taken off without any big problem
but on through freight trains, they should have left them right there. They
were in an excellent position to continue their training to be an engineer
and some of the ones who were separated with well qualified to become
engineers when their turn came. Instead, this obscene award threw them
out in the street or to another job. A good number of them came back
quite soon as the railroad (NHRR in this case) cut way too many of them
off and they lost some good people who chose never to come back. They
ended up paying severance pay to qualified people, then they had to turn
around and hire, train and qualify brand new people off the street to do
the same job.
An agreement could have and should have been made to keep all of the
current firemen on the job and do away with the jobs in the yard. Men
could have been cut by attrition, problem was that Gilbert (then president
of the BLF&E) would not budge, the railroads would not budge either
although I think there could have been a give and take on both sides and
nobody would have gotten hurt.
The railroads as a result of award 282 and subsequent agreements have
had to set up engineer training programs at a huge cost to the companies
and with mixed results. I am sure there are mixed opinions in the
industry both past and present but I would never trade the experience of
having worked with some of the best engineers in the business and some
of the finest people as well for any "engineer's school" in a far off
classroom.
The New York Central in New York State had to have firemen on every
job as a result of the full crew law and even after that law was repealed,
they continued to employ fireman on most of the freight jobs. It was an
ideal situation, when they needed an engineer and had no one available
on the extra list, it was easy enough to promote a fireman for a day and
the job got covered. This carried over to the Penn Central era too.
You did not see trains sitting all over the place for lack of rested crews in
those days. You did not see trains going "bump" all over the place
because the two man crew was so tired from lack of proper rest that it
became impossible to stay awake.
The UTU did not help this situation either by agreeing to take the remaining jobs off either, it just made an already bad situation worse.
So what do we have today? We have a situation where just about every
freight railroad in the country has a critical shortage of qualified and
certified locomotive engineers. As a result, the remaining engineers are
being required to work an excessive number of hours. To make an
already bad situation worse, some of the freight railroads will not even
admit that this shortage is a problem or that they have a problem.
On today's web sites of both the BLE and UTU are articles about the fatigue problem particularly on the Union Pacific but on all of the freight
railroads.
I may have more to say later on this but right now I am running short on
the "hours of service law".
Noel Weaver

Question if CSX sells these lines can the emplyoees go with their senitority esle where on CSX?

Noel Weaver wrote:I was affected in 1964 with the arbitration award 282 when the firemen
were taken off nearly all freight and yard jobs. I do give the BLF&E full
blame for this mess in the first place. I think for the most part, the
fireman on a yard job could have been taken off without any big problem
but on through freight trains, they should have left them right there. They
were in an excellent position to continue their training to be an engineer
and some of the ones who were separated with well qualified to become
engineers when their turn came.

please show me a similiar position out in the real world where someone gets hired to sit around for YEARS waiting for their turn to do their work...

please do

Firemen were an absolute joke, and the craft should have been dissolved when the last steam locomotives were retired.

Im sure there are tons of railfans who would love to ride around on a train all day and do nothing, but to PAY someone very good money to "train" is absolute maddness.

Its bad enough the train had a front and rear brakeman even though chances are the train would not set off or pick up any cars en-route.

The flagman too, another train rider.

Its no wonder all those railroads went bankrupt in the 60's and 70's...

Conrail was enough welfare, they did right by cutting the fat