Talk:CSX Transportation

message: 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)
thread_title: CSX external links

message: 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)
thread_title: Division Section

message: 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)
thread_title: Notes

message: 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)
thread_title: CSX Corporation

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rollback reason 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Predecessors 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Neutral? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  System Map 

message: 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)
thread_title:  corporate infobox 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hump Yard Errors 

message: 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)
replies: text: is listed in the references, and appears to support that whole paragraph. --NE2 17:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming

message: 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)
thread_title: Nov 2008, New Info

message: 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)
thread_title:  CFN/CSX Fiber Networks 

message: 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?http://www.csx.com/?fuseaction=about.environment
Septagram (talk) 04:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I wouldn't be surprised if the ES40/44s could.  GE's brochure says that they are extremely fuel efficient. Coasterlover1994Leave your mark! 04:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:   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)
thread_title:  trains can move a ton of freight 436 miles on a single gallon of fuel 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Incorrect Information 

message: 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)
thread_title:  List of locomotives/horns 

message: 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)
replies: text: agreed. And why is it in the Critism section? Talltim (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevancy of Crazy 8's 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Locomotives section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merging [[CSX Transportation]] and [[CSX Corporation]] into [[CSX]] 

message: 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.https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_va/00503367https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_al/000-856-200
: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)
thread_title: Establishment of CSX Transportation

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[New York Central Lines LLC]] into [[CSX Transportation]]