I got the impression that NYC had better routes, but PRR had more customers. How does that all pan out now for NS & CSX?
All you have to do is spend an afternoon trackside around Enola, PA to see that NS definitely got the best of the CONRAIL split. If CSX had taken over the former PRR lines, they would have divested themselves of their former B&O lines through Maryland, leaving Cumberland and Baltimore ghost towns.
Good question. Interesting part of the Loving book was that NS wanted the PRR routes in Pa because of the coal traffic.
As it turned out, NS got the coal and also the high speed route west of Cleveland. CSX had to rebuild their route, in addition to overpaying for their portion of Conrail. NS had good access to St. Louis so they could give up the Indy - St. Louis route. In fact, one could claim that NS had great access to St. Louis, bypassing it directly to KC!
ed
NS by far made out better.
CSX got the B&A and Mohawk across New England and upstate New York, as well as the Philly to New York and New York to Albany lines. While not bad routes, they are running at capacity. As are, CSX’s Philly - Baltimore - Cumberland - Pittsburgh lines, which weren’t great routes to begin with.
NS got the high speed, high density former Reading and PRR lines across Pennsylvania. NS has capacity to spare on these lines, and it shows. And most importantly, the line is double stack capable. CSX’s I-95 line between New York, Philly, Baltimore south and west isn’t.
CSX is turning away business, and NS takes all comers. In any given day, I see far more NS traffic on the Harrisburg line (at least one train per hour) then I see CSX traffic on the Philly Sub & Trenton Line (I often go an entire 8 hour shift only seeing 2 to 4 trains.)
Nick