at 6:00am 02/10/08 westbound out of collinwood yard had mainline derailment between parma and berea. cars blocking both mains.
uh oh.q381,380,390,351,plus alot of other trains are in trouble.
stay safe
joe
Ya really got to feel for CSX; whether you like them or not. Something is going on at CSX. Not just the usual list of ills. Something else. [?]
http://www.csx-sucks.com/pictures/?MMR.jpg
Again!!![banghead]
And that hedge fund thinks they’re spending too much money on maintenance…
{shakes head} when will they ever learn?
the train could have been q351 but not sure on that.a couple places I looked were www.newsnet.5.com and 19 actionnews.com.RJ corman is cleaning up the scene.
stay safe
joe
I have noticed that every time there is an accident involving CSX, there are always quotes like this. I have asked a few times if there are actual numbers to back this up, since there seems to be accidents on other railroads that get discussed on this and other forums without similar comments. So I went out to the FRA webside and did a few quick queries:
Number of Train Accidents per 1,000,000 Miles (2007)
- AMTK 1.99
- NS 2.27
- CSX 2.73
- BNSF 2.96
- UP 3.59
- KCS 8.13
Number of Track Caused Accidents per 1,000,000 Miles (2007)
- AMTK 0.55
- NS 0.66
- CSX 0.89
- BNSF 1.00
- UP 1.22
- KCS 3.44
Total Derailments
- AMTK 25
- KCS 64
- NS 145
- CSX 196
- BNSF 409
- UP 483
Total Train Miles (Millions)
- KCS 10.5
- AMTK 36.2
- NS 94.4
- CSX 100.5
- BNSF 177.6
- UP 179.0
Am I missing something? If I were just going on what I read on railfan forums, I would expect to see CSX at the bottom of the pack by a whopping margin in the above data, but this does not seem to be the case.
Thank you for opening our eyes![:-,]
Hahaha…sorry if I sound like a know-it-all; I actually don’t know very much on this subject. It sure seems based on what I “see” in the media that CSX is way more accident prone than other railroads, but I have been trying to determine whether or not that conception is rooted in fact.
Finally, justice… Thanks PS! [bow]
As Disreali pointed out, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Perhaps the answer to why there are more reports of CSX derailments, is because there are derailments and there are derailments. One truck on the ties is a derailment, just as 30 cars with hazmat involved.
Not picking on CSX, mind you. There have been reports of derailments involving other railroads here on the forum lately, too.
Looks to me like Amtrak has pretty good safety record as well according to this.
i do belive that the comments regarding csx and derailments comes from a news artical published some years back that stated that csx was rated the worst in track mantiance and overall track condistions… basicly bad track… and ever since this was published… anytime csx hits the ground… t
csx-sucks.com was what got me into making CSX jokes. true or not, it still cracks me up. as long as nobody got hurt
Seems like when one of the big western roads drops a wheel, they seldom are in someone’s back yard with ominous green clouds hissing out of derelict tank cars.
Plus, let’s not overlook the hollywood corollary: Fame comes easy for the notorious.
CSX
C-rash
S-top
X-plode
As Tree says, there are derailments and then there are DERAILMENTS!
and CSX has a talent for the “Oy Vey!” end of the spectrum[(-D]
Probably not quite as simple as that, Larry. A wheel or truck on the ground would probably be below the threshhold of reportability for FRA, so all of the incidents in these damned statistics are probably fairly noteworthy.
You’re probably also right, though, that CSX probably spends less on maintenance than most of the other railroads do. Even if maintenance spending were to increase dramatically for the next few years, it would probably be purely catch-up. Also, unfortunately for CSX, they are probably one of the few railroads whose maintenance policies have not improved in recent years or decades, and may have headed in the other direction. You get a lot of criticism from the ex-Cons (Conrail employees) who have seen maintenance practices go downhill in recent times. But they aren’t the only ones–I’ve been around long enough to remember when C&O was a well-maintained, glassy smooth railroad, even with all of the coal trains operating over it. Until all of the old heads die out, and the newbies have nothing positive to compare this with, we’ll be hearing about CSX wrecks in a more negative light.
I quess I should of made my self a bit more clear. P S is correct. His statistics are accurate. My “something else” quote was impling some force other than CSX. Exactly as some of you have pointed out, just why does CSX derailments seem to make almost every forum And news service? Whose interest is it if CSX has a ‘perceived’ lousy accident record? Now, Now, I am no conspiracy theory type, but some of these CSX derailments appear on the wires almost as fast as they happen.