I was wondering why isn't there a steam program on the CSX? It would be an excellent marketing strategy for them. It would bring in new business. I'm not saying they need to get a berk or an Allegheny or anything like that. I'm just saying how about a few steam excursions or at least a few vintage diesels for a few trips. They could do just like their rival NS is doing with their program. I can name a few trips say the Santa Claus Train and the New River Train. Having a steam locomotive handle those trains would bring in good publicly. One thing I do know is this to bring in more business you need to start marketing and steam is a perfect example for that. CSX could use NKP 765 for now then use C&O 614. They could use L&N 152 if it's still operating for a few small trips and NKP 765 for longer trips. I don't want to start anything I just want opinions that's all. I say Start Small like two to three trips a year then go from there. I think its worth the risk the other railroads are doing that the NS, UP, Alaska, CP for now, and BNSF at somewhat why not CSX. What are they afraid of?

They don't run a steam program because they don't want to and they don't have to.
It's as simple as that.

Where is the evidence that having a steam program brings in more business?

I've noticed more advertising from CSX than any other mainline carrier, and a lot of sponsorship of PBS radio programs making mention of how fuel efficient rail freight is. My guess is they have chosen to use the media rather then become event producers as a means of spreading their message.

Speaking of media......anybody else notice the free advertising X Box got in the past few days by convincing the media that they were news? A carefully planned rollout of a new product synchronized with "consumers" camping out in front of stores amid the normal annual grumbling about the Christmas shopping season starting too soon. Anybody believe the camping shoppers weren't being compensated in some way? Can we learn how to manipulate the media even half as well?

dave

Furthermore, If the only argument to support a steam program is marketing,you've gone to the wrong railroad. CSX's marketing department puts big money in "How Tomorrow Moves" not "We Like Old Coal Burning Things". While a steam program is usually good for PR, in this case it does not at all help them. They talk up the efficiency of the railroads, but steam locomotives burn coal (or oil) usually, and if a fireman is not careful, you get a lot of smoke. Which, in our culture means pollution, which is counter to their marketing.

On the other hand, NS bills it self as the "Thoroughbred of Transportation" and recently had a big celebration of it's 30th birthday. It only follows that the company looks to it history and pulls out NKP 765, a "thoroughbred" in its own right; SOU 630, a humble freight hauler; and now N&W 611, which is notable as being built not by Baldwin, ALCO or Lima; instead being built at home by the N&W and still being a famous, powerful engine that many love (realistically, how many other engines in the U.S. would see $600,000 donated to restore them by railfans in under a year?).

Further info:

L&N 152 is out of service and will be for a long time to come.

CP's steam program is pretty much at a standstill.

That leaves NS and UP with formal programs.

The original post misses the point of CSX, the marketing strategy they use, and how they make money.

The question shouldn't be, "why not", the question should be, "why?". A CSX doesn't think a steam program is what the stock holders want.

Since you asked, my opinion is that you have no real idea what a railroad is or what it does. I know this will probably shock you, but CSX doesn't exist for your aesthetic pleasure. They don't run those freight trains and the occasional business trains to give you something to chase and take photographs of. CSX is a shareholder-owned corporation. Shareholders elect directors who run the company for the benefit of the shareholders. CSX, its management, its board and its shareholders think they can do just fine without running steam or diesel excursions. Just as NS and CSX have determined they can use steam as a marketing tool, CSX has determined it does not need to. Neither approach is a right or wrong answer. Instead, the two approaches demonstrate that your marketing strategy can be different, but with the same end result, making money for your shareholders.



They aren't afraid of anything, other than maybe railfans being on the property CSX that they know better how to manage their company and its assets.

It just comes down to there is some executive somewhere, at or close to the top, who thinks that there are better ways to spend advertising/PR dollars. Pretty simple. One day that person will retire and if their replacement has a big idea maybe something will change.

Forget a steam program. It would be a major step just to allow others to run across their lines. Heck, as we saw a couple of years ago, it would be a big step simply to allow an engine to traverse their lines in a positioning move.

You want stuff to happen? Buy stock. Get a group together to buy lots of stock and then make the group known to management and if amongst all of you, you have amassed enough for them to care, then they'll care. I have no idea at what level that occurs.

Steve

Probably at the "Warren Buffet" level.

CSX middle management has no business getting anywhere near passenger cars and people. I can just imagine the carnage.

Well, until recently they do this with MARC :-). And still do from an operational aspect. I was impressed a couple of weeks ago when after the last MARC train ran through Silver Spring, MD, CSX ran 10 freights through within the next 60 minutes. :-)

Bob

I don’t think there is a rational or conclusive answer to the question of whether or not it pays to run steam. If there were, both companies would either run steam or not. And I also doubt that everyone in the capacity to influence the decision agrees on whether to run steam. As others have mentioned, that decision can change with the whims of those running the company.

Bulby brought up an excellent point about CSX marketing "green" to save the planet. Coal is enemy number one to that philosophy. Steam locomotives symbolize the age of coal, even if they happen to burn oil (either petroleum or French fry). I cannot imagine how CSX could reconcile the two conflicting marketing strategies. However, the same might be said of U.P., since they are also promoting a green image.

That is it.

Never say never, but with the upper management team currently running CSX (Michael Ward, CEO, Oscar Munoz COO), doing something to benefit a small fraction of the population in which they operate doesn't make sense.

Lets not forget steam was "dead" at NS until Wick Moorman became CEO, and that was a seventeen year gap.