In the fourth quarter of 2004, CSX had an operating ratio of 85.0%, an improvement of 1.7 points over the year-ago quarter, but still the worst among the Big Six except for UP, which was at 86.0%.
In the same period, NS had an operating ratio of 76.3%, a 4.0-point improvement over the year-ago quarter, and the second-best operating ratio in the industry (although it lagged industry-best CN by 11.3 points).
Question: can CSX catch up?
My own theory, subject to challenge by anyone who knows more about these railroads than I do, is that CSX is likely to under-perform NS for the foreseeable future, in large part because NS’s physical plant is superior to CSX’s, and with rail volumes growing at a rapid clip, CSX doesn’t have the capacity to manage these volumes efficiently.
My impression of NS is that much of the former Southern Railway territory is either double-track CTC or at least has frequent passing sidings that permit fluid operation, whereas CSX’s former SCL/L&N territory is mainly a single-track railroad with less frequent sidings.
As for N&W territory vs. Chessie, I know that CSX put a lot of money into rebuilding the west end of the B&O before the Conrail splitup, but still, I suspect that overall the former N&W is superior physically to the former C&O/B&O.
Here’s a quote from a Don Phillips story in the Washington Post (12/16/03) that I think has some bearing on this: “CSX for years limited capital spending in part to make its finances look better. It began reducing spending in the late 1980s, shortly before Snow became chief executive. From 1991 to 1998, CSX spent less per mile of track than any other major railroad, regulatory filings show.”
It also seemed to me that SOU and N&W had more modern classification yards than SCL/L&N and Chessie.
As far as the effect of the ex-Conrail territories taken over by each of these railroads, I don’t see where there is much difference – if anything, CSX might be