Norfolk Southern Corp (NSC) 2011 Q3 法說會逐字稿

Greetings and welcome to the Norfolk Southern third-quarter 2011 analyst call.

At this time all participants are in a listen only mode.

A brief question-and-answer session will follow the formal presentation.

(Operator Instructions).

As a reminder, this conference is being recorded.

It is now my pleasure to introduce Mr.

Michael Hostutler, Norfolk Southern Director of Investor Relations.

Thank you, Mr.

Hostutler, you may begin.

Thank you, and good afternoon.

Before we begin today's call I would like to mention a few items.

First, the slides of the presenters are available on our website at nscorp.com in the Investor section.

Additionally, transcripts and MP3 downloads of today's call will be posted on our website for your convenience.

Please be advised that any forward-looking statements made during the course of the call represent our best good-faith judgment as to what may occur in the future.

Statements that are forward-looking can be identified by the use of words such as believe, expect, anticipate, and project.

Our actual results may differ materially from those projected and will be subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, some of which may be outside of our control.

Please refer to our annual and quarterly reports filed with the SEC for discussions of those risks and uncertainties we view as most important.

Additionally, keep in mind that all references to reported results, excluding certain adjustments -- that is non-GAAP numbers -- have been reconciled on our website at nscorp.com in the Investor section.

Now it is my pleasure to introduce Norfolk Southern Chairman, President and CEO Wick Moorman.

Thank you, Michael, and good afternoon everyone.

It is my pleasure to welcome you to our third-quarter 2011 earnings conference call.

With me today are several members of our senior team, including Don Seale, our Chief Marketing Officer; Mark Manion, our Chief Operating Officer; and Jim Squires, our Chief Financial Officer, all of whom you will hear from this afternoon.

Continuing to build on the first half's momentum Norfolk Southern produced excellent results in the third quarter.

We achieved all-time highs for any quarter in income from operations and earnings per share.

And our third-quarter operating ratio of 67.5% equaled our best ever performance.

As you would expect, these third-quarter results, coupled with the first two quarters which were also outstanding, led to across-the-board record results for the nine-month period, including all-time highs for revenues, income from operations, operating ratio, net income and earnings per share.

Much of this was driven by continuing improvement in our service product, which helped to produce significant growth in revenues.

Don will provide you with all of the details in a few minutes, but let me give you a few highlights.

The trends of the first two quarters extended into the third as we continued to see highway conversions lead intermodal unit growth of 8% for the quarter and 9% year-to-date.

Similarly, export coal volume has sustained its strong pace, up 23% for the quarter and 24% for the year today.

We foresee solid strength in these markets continuing into the fourth quarter and on into 2012.

With respect to service, we achieved another quarterly sequential improvement with the third-quarter composite service index of 78.2% representing a 160 basis point improvement over the second quarter.

Mark will give you all the operations details a little later.

As you all know, we have consistently been investing in our service product in terms of both increased crew hiring as well as investments in assets and technology.

While these investments have obviously impacted our expenses, they have also allowed us to efficiently bring on increasing volumes into our network, resulting in significant operating leverage and our record-tying OR of 67.5%.

These strong operating results have led to record cash flows for the first nine months, which we have used to reinvest in our business and to reward our shareholders.

I mentioned our investments in our Company, and thus far in 2011 we spent $1.4 billion on capital projects, including items such as new locomotives, which provide both immediate and ongoing benefits, as well as longer-term projects such as terminals, which will add value beginning next year.

On the shareholder front we paid $432 million so far this year in dividends, an 18% per share increase versus 2010.

And in addition we repurchased over $1.6 billion of our shares through the first nine months.

Both are clearly strong indicators in our belief in the continued future strength of our Company.

I will go ahead and now turn over the program to Don, Mark and Jim, and that I will wrap up with some closing comments before we take your questions.

Don.

Thank you, Wick, and good afternoon to everyone.

During the third quarter we saw an economy that posted modest improvements in favorable global trade patterns.

When combined with our ongoing new business development, we produced a strong quarter which was within $5 million of our all-time high set in third-quarter 2008.

In total revenue for the quarter reached $2.89 billion, up $433 million or 18% over the third quarter of last year, with yield improvement across all business groups and volume growth in intermodal, metals and construction, automotive and coal.

Approximately 82% or $353 million of the revenue gain in the quarter was driven by higher revenue per unit, including pricing gains and increased fuel surcharge revenue.

The remaining $80 million was the result of increased volume, which was up 3% or 57,000 units.

With respect to yield, we achieved our second highest revenue per unit ever reaching $1,596, up $195, or 14%, compared to third quarter last year.

This was just $8 per unit below our all-time RPU record which we set in the second quarter of this year.

Improved pricing based on market demand and tighter transportation capacity across all modes, combined with higher fuel surcharge revenue, drove this performance.

For the quarter we achieved record RPU levels in agriculture, metals and construction, paper, automotive and coal, surpassing the records previously set in each of these groups during the second quarter.

Additionally, intermodal RPU was up 10% led by higher fuel surcharge revenue and improved pricing.

The pricing environment for our business continues to be favorable as truck capacity tightens and driver turnover continues to be an issue.

According to the American Trucking Association, driver turnover at large carriers has reached its highest level since the second quarter of 2008, now standing at 79%.

And barge capacity remains tight for coal, grain and other bulk commodities.

Now turning to our volume performance in the third quarter.

Total shipments of 1.81 million were up 57,000 units or 3% over third-quarter 2010.

This was our highest quarterly volume since third-quarter 2008, just prior to the recession.

These favorable results were driven by both economic and project growth, with overall gains in intermodal, metals and construction, automotive and coal more than offsetting declines in chemicals, agriculture and paper.

Overall volume during the quarter reached a new 52-week high in late September, led by a 52-week high in intermodal.

Now transitioning to our major business sectors, as shown on slide five, coal revenue of $899 million was up $190 million or 27% over third-quarter 2010.

And that was our highest revenue quarter ever.

Volume of 405,000 units improved by 2,400 loads or 1%, driven by increased global demand which led to higher export volume.

This more than offset lower volumes to utilities, which came as a result of some gas displacement and reduced demand for electricity in our service regions, with Eastern coal burn down 5% year to date through August.

For the quarter we also saw a slight improvement in domestic metallurgical coal as more coal became available from additional production to the domestic coke market, which continues to be below targeted stockpiles.

Increased met coal production came on stream during the quarter at two Norfolk Southern served mines, which is favorable for both domestic and export met coal going forward.

As we continue our discussion on coal you will note on the next slide that our export volume of nearly 62,000 loads was up 23% in car loadings and 25% in tonnage over the third-quarter of 2010, reflecting more productive coal cars.

Tightened met coal supply around the world and an 11% increase in global steel production continues to support strong demand.

At Lamberts Point volume for the quarter reached 42,000 carloads, up 39%, while shipments over Baltimore were down 2% due to weaker demand in Japan and flood-related issues during August and September.

Concluding my discussion of coal on slide 7, our utility volume of 265,000 loads was down 4% compared to the same period in 2010.

Competition from natural gas and reduced electrical demand impacted coal burn across our network, which was partially offset by new business.

Stockpiles at Norfolk Southern served power plants on average are below targeted levels, and we expect to see continued sequential utility volume increases ahead on the heels of the record we experienced this summer across the NS service region.

Now turning to our intermodal network.

Intermodal revenue of $551 million was up $87 million or 19% over third-quarter 2010.

This gain was based on increased fuel-related revenue, volume growth and improved pricing.

Volume surpassed 826,000 units, up 65,000 units or 8%, with strong gains led by our domestic business.

Domestic volume growth of 13% in the quarter was driven primarily by highway conversions, with tightening truck capacity in the marketplace, while the 7% volume growth in international included strong growth in local lanes, as well as some evidence of increased seasonal demand.

Premium volume, which was up 3%, benefited from tight truck capacity as well, and highway conversions in the less-than-truckload segment in addition to other new business.

And Triple Crown volume was up 1% for the quarter.

As you can see on the next slide, we made appreciable progress in growing our volumes across our major intermodal corridors during the quarter and for the first nine months of the year.

Notably the volumes for Crescent corridor, which parallels some of the nation's most congested highways, are up 30% for the quarter and 32% for the first nine months of the year as compared to last year.

The large increase over the Heartland Corridor is comprised of organic growth of 24% and 15% for the quarter and year-to-date, respectively, with the balance representing rerouted shipments that previously moved over longer routes by Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and Knoxville, Tennessee.

During the third quarter our export container business was up 13%, while imports grew by 7%.

This volume includes loaded units moving to and from all ports that we serve.

Now let's turn to merchandise as shown on slide 10.

In merchandise we generated revenue of $1.4 billion, up $156 million or 12% over third-quarter 2010, with record revenue per unit in four of the five merchandise segments -- agriculture, metals and construction, paper and automotive.

Volume for the quarter was 578,000 carloads, down 2%, with softness in certain industrial products markets and negative comps in chemicals and agriculture offsetting the growth in metals and construction and automotive.

During the quarter we saw better-than-expected levels of manufacturing activity as noted by the ISM Manufacturing Index which reached 51.6% for September, up from 50.6% the prior month, and the highest rating since June.

Now drilling down to specific market segments within our merchandise business, our metals and construction volume improved by 11,000 loads or 7% compared to third-quarter last year, with increases in metals and miscellaneous construction materials.

Drivers of this growth ranged from increased steel for auto production to strong demand for sand and other materials flowing to the Marcellus Shale gas operations.

In our automotive market volume grew 8% over third-quarter of last year, driven by an increase in North American light vehicle production, which is up 8% for the quarter and projected to be up 11% for the year, and robust vehicle sales which were up 7% in the third quarter compared to last year.

New business gains, including Volkswagen shipments from the newly opened Chattanooga assembly plant, also contributed to our growth in automotive in the quarter.

In our other merchandise business groups, as shown on slide 12, chemicals volume was down due to difficult comparisons to third-quarter 2010 that included over 8,700 carloads of TVA fly ash business.

As I have stated in previous quarters, we will not clear that negative comp until December 1 of this year.

Agriculture volume declined 7% in the third quarter with tough year-over-year comps that accounted for over one-third of the decline in this market.

We will clear this negative comp March 1, 2012.

The remainder of the decline in ag was related to a 17% reduction in shipments of corn, primarily to short haul Midwest destinations where greater local crop availability reduced the need for inbound rail.

And, finally, our paper and forest products business was down 5% due to weaker pulp board clay and woodchip volumes in the quarter.

Now looking ahead, we expect continued growth across most of our portfolio.

The economic outlook for most industrial sectors calls for slow but steady growth, including upward projections for steel and North American light vehicle production.

We see positive signs for international trade, which continues to bode well for our export coal, manufactured products, grain and intermodal business.

And domestic truckload capacity challenges and the advantages of intermodal service further support growth ahead in our expanding corridor network.

We expect our volumes to continue to exceed the growth of GDP, and we plan to price to market demand at levels exceeding the cost of rail inflation, thereby increasing returns for our shareholders while delivering value for our customers through better capacity, service and equipment.

Thank you for your attention, and now Mark will present our service update.

Mark.

Thanks, Don.

Starting with safety, we ended the third quarter with a safety ratio of 0.67 compared to 0.86, a 22% improvement over the same period last year.

For the first nine months our ratio was 0.76, a 20% improvement over the corresponding period last year.

Turning to the service front.

Our third-quarter composite service performance was 78.2%, even with last year but sequentially improved from the first and second quarters.

Good improvements in both train and connection performance have driven the sequential gain.

While even with levels of the third-quarter last year, train speed has increased sequentially from the first and second quarters.

Terminal dwell, the average time cars dwell at a switching yard, stood at levels consistent with last year, but again like train speed, improved over the first and second quarters.

Turning to the next slide, as you can see, our crew base is much improved over we have been in 2010 and earlier this year.

By September this year we had crews we needed throughout most of the system, with a few locations that will continue to fill out through the rest of this year.

In January 2012 our total T&E employment will stabilize, with trainee hiring slowing in order to maintain a steady state work force.

As our total T&E employment levels out, our qualified T&E employment count continues to climb for several more months as conductors finished training.

We are at the point where we are handling existing business and we are prepared for volumes ahead.

Finally, turning to our productivity scorecard, as previously indicated, volume is up 3%, with crew starts up 3%, and additionally gross ton miles are up 4%.

Railroad employees are up 7%, as we continue to hire trainees in order to return us to employment levels commensurate with our current traffic levels and the 2012 forecast.

Gross ton miles per employee is down 2% compared to last year, which of course is influenced by the 7% increase in employees.

However, this is a 1% point improvement from the second quarter as the sequential growth in gross ton miles is taking place at a faster rate than the growth in the employment population.

Gross ton miles per gallon were down 2% year-over-year, primarily driven by a shift in traffic mix toward finished automobiles and intermodal and away from the more gross ton miles per gallon efficient bulk commodity unit trains.

This is also a sequential improvement from the second quarter when we posted a negative 5%.

Gross ton miles per train hour improved 2%, as our network has grown increasingly fluid.

And now I will turn it over to Jim.

Jim.

Thank you, Mark.

I will now review our financial results for the third quarter, which we are pleased to report reflect continued record performance.

Let's start with our operating results.

As Don described, railway operating revenues for the quarter reached $2.9 billion, up $433 million or 18% compared to the third quarter of last year, including an increase in fuel surcharge revenue of $179 million.

West Texas intermediate crude oil prices have progressively declined since May, resulting in a favorable third-quarter fuel lag effect of approximately $52 million.

Year to date the fuel lag is negligible.

Slide 3 shows our total operating expenses, which increased $241 million or 14% for the quarter.

The combined operating results generated an all-time record $938 million of income from railway operations, a 26% increase compared to the prior year.

Our operating ratio set a new third-quarter record at 67.5% and matched our overall record.

Removing the $52 million favorable fuel revenue lag, our operating ratio would have been 68.8% or 130 basis points higher, also a third-quarter record.

Assuming level or rising WTI for the remainder of the year, we would have a negative fuel revenue lag effect in the fourth quarter.

Turning to expenses, this slide presents the components of the $241 million increase.

Similar to our experience last quarter, fuel and compensation and benefits accounted for three-fourths of the operating expense variance.

As displayed on the following slide, nearly all of the $126 million increase in fuel expense was due to higher prices.

As shown next our average price per gallon of diesel fuel was $3.10, a 42% increase compared with the third quarter of 2010.

This year our diesel fuel prices have correlated more closely with the Brent Index than WTI, our traditional benchmark.

Since the beginning of the year Brent has traded at an increasing premium compared to WTI, and this has impacted our cost structure.

Although we have seen some relief from this trend in just the last week, we do expect the Brent premium to continue to pressure fuel expense and the operating ratio in the fourth quarter.

Compensation and benefits displayed next reflected a $56 million increase, up 8%.

As detailed on the next slide the components driving the change are generally consistent with second-quarter 2011 run rates.

Volume-related payroll was up $19 million, including $8 million for trainees.

Medical benefits for agreement employees increased $13 million.

Payroll taxes were up $8 million and wage rates were up $5 million.

Pension costs were up $4 million.

Purchased services and rent increased $26 million, or 7%, reflecting increased volume-related services primarily associated with intermodal and other transportation services, as well as additional roadway and mechanical maintenance to support the higher volumes.

Similarly materials and other expenses presented next increased $20 million or 11%, primarily due to volume-related equipment and maintenance activities, reliability initiatives for locomotive fleet and travel costs.

Turning to our nonoperating items, the majority of the decrease is due to lower net corporate-owned life insurance returns, coupled with decreased coal royalties, which reflect the absence of a 2010 favorable settlement.

As you may recall last year's property sales benefited from a particularly large transaction from the city of Virginia Beach.

This year's results, while lower, include a $24 million gain from a property sale in Ohio.

As illustrated on the next slide, income before income taxes increased $170 million or 24%, principally due to higher operating income.

Income taxes totaled $330 million and the effective tax rate was 37.3%.

The income taxes last year where $269 million with an effective rate of 37.7%.

Our bottom line results presented on the following slide reflect third-quarter net income of $554 million, an increase of $109 million or 24% compared to last year.

Diluted earnings per share were a record $1.59, reflecting a $0.40 per share or a 34% increase.

Turning to our year-to-date cash flows, cash provided by operations increased 30% year-over-year, driven by higher net income and increased deferred income tax expense that is largely related to the benefit of bonus depreciation.

The additional cash generated from operations covered increased property additions through September.

We have utilized free cash flow, along with cash and short-term investments, to support share repurchases and dividends.

In the third quarter we repurchased 12.2 million shares at a total cost of $819 million.

Our remaining share repurchase authority as of the end of the quarter is approximately 22 million shares.

We ended September with $394 million in cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments.

Thank you for your attention and now I will turn the program back to Wick.

Thanks, Jim.

Well, as you have heard, this was an excellent quarter, and as I said earlier a great indicator of the strength of the Norfolk Southern franchise.

As we look ahead over the short term we continue to see signs pointing to overall, modest economic growth.

Don discussed our projected growth in domestic intermodal and continued strength in export coal.

And we anticipate that our overall volumes will continue to grow at a rate somewhat greater than that of the economy.

Looking further out, we have an abiding belief in the ultimate resiliency of the US economy.

And we will continue to manage and invest for the long term to maintain the safety and quality of our franchise and to improve operating efficiency and service.

In that regard, earlier I mentioned our capital spending this year.

We are now in the process of working through our capital budget for 2012, and while the numbers haven't been finalized yet, we do anticipate another strong budget for the year, driven by our belief in our ability to grow volumes over the long-term along with increasing expenditures on positive train control.

Clearly, the other issues of the day are the current labor round and the deliberations of the Presidential Emergency Board.

I don't really have anything to add that you probably don't already know.

But I am hopeful and optimistic that the board will recognize that the contract which we have already signed with the UTU, which represents about 30% of our contract workforce, is a good deal for our employees and should represent the pattern for a settlement.

I will conclude by saying that excellent financial performance like that we produced in the third quarter is the result of the hard work of a lot of people.

We have a great team at Norfolk Southern and we are committed to continuing to produce superior service for our customers and superior returns for our shareholders as the US economy continues to improve.

Thanks for your attention, and we will now open it up to take your questions.

Thank you.

We will now be conducting a question-and-answer session.

Please limit your inquiries to one primary and one follow-up so everyone has an opportunity to participate.

(Operator Instructions).

Tom Wadewitz, JPMorgan Chase.

Good afternoon and congratulations on the strong results.

Let's see, I wanted to ask for a little bit more perspective on your coal view.

I'm not sure if I caught all of your comments, Don, so I apologize if I missed something, but how do you think utility coal may play out in 2012, assuming you have a continuing low natural gas price?

Is there further switching on your -- switching risk on your franchise?

And then what would your view on export coal be in terms of demand and just how you get your arms around visibility to that?

Well, let's take the first one.

With respect to gas and the impact on utility coal going forward, we believe that the effect of gas displacement is pretty much already baked into the volumes we are seeing.

As you know, most of that gas displacement are at the smaller, older marginal plants -- heat rate plants.

So we have already seen that impact and we don't anticipate an increasing impact going forward.

With respect to the export market, as you know, we are pretty much 100% metallurgical coal in our export portfolio.

We expect demand for that product to continue to be strong.

You might have seen that coming out of the recent conference in Madrid, Spain of coals trends that the projection for Chinese imports for coal by 2015 is projected to go as high as 200 million tons, up from 91 million tons at the current run rate.

And we think China will continue to be a major factor with respect to our export demand, as well as South America and Europe and the rest of Asia.

Okay, that is helpful.

I appreciate it.

Then I guess a quick one on yields.

You had just tremendous momentum on your yield performance this year, and a pretty sharp contrast to last year.

I guess maybe mix was a head wind last year and a tail wind this year.

But how do we think about yield growth next year, given that there has been such a large difference in performance in this year versus last year?

It is kind of hard to figure out what the right ballpark is to be in on the overall yield growth for 2012.

I would remind you that export coal is longer haul.

And when we have utility coal going to our southern network it is longer haul as well.

So those dynamics are at play.

We certainly expect our export market to continue to be strong, as I've mentioned previously.

So that portion of the dynamics will be there.

And we see opportunities for growth in the utility market going forward.

That includes our southern utility.

So those long-haul dynamics should continue.

Now, ultimately, our domestic net US receivers will take more coal.

That is shorter haul and it is very profitable business for us though.

And that will come into the mix when it starts to move and replenish stockpiles.

Right, okay, thank you for the time.

Bill Greene, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney.

Don, obviously you have sort of outlined here what has happened with the volumes, and they have actually done a bit better than some of the peers.

And I am wondering if there is a way for you to parse out how much the growth in your volumes is from new business initiatives, organic growth or maybe even share gains?

We track that, obviously.

I will tell you that year to date that over two-thirds of our business gain is organic growth.

So just growth in market on the same-store sales, is that the right way to think about it?

It is new business that is coming from the highway or new projects that we have launched in the marketplace that is generating new rail freight for us.

Okay, and then the other one-third is from --?

It is basically partially truck conversion.

And I would say that is the largest category.

If you look at our Intermodal business and our domestic growth that is exactly where it is coming from is the highway.

Okay.

And then, Wick, I am curious, in your experience have we seen examples in a labor negotiation where pattern bargaining really didn't hold, I mean, aside from maybe a nuance in a contract here or there?

But is there any reason to expect that there could be a materially different economic outcome from this Presidential Emergency Board?

You know, as I said, we are optimistic.

I am certainly optimistic that the board will look at the UTU agreement which was ratified by a 60/40 margin and is on the single largest rail union, and also look at the economics of that deal which are very good for UTU members, and it should represent a pattern.

It has been a long time since we have had a board in the rail industry, so I don't really have any experience of it being anything other than a process in which the concept of a pattern is recognized.

We certainly have some experienced arbitrators on the board, so that is what leads to our optimism that they will view this, at least in its overall outline, as a rational pattern to settle with the rest of the organizations.

Okay, that's great.

Thank you for the time.

Justin Yagerman, Deutsche Bank.

It is Rob Salmon on for Justin.

Congrats on a real solid quarter.

As we think about your export coal exposure could you give us a sense of the ultimate customers as a percentage of the overall business like, for example, China, Europe, South America?

Generally if you break it out about 55% of our export is Western Europe, about 20% is Asia, and then the balance is South America.

And when I say Asia, we are including Japan, Korea, India, China, etc.

All right thanks.

And certainly you guys gave an upbeat outlook regarding the remainder of the year.

In Q3 we did see a little bit of an impact, I guess, from the Port of Baltimore being down.

Could we actually see volume growth accelerate in Q4 given the head wind that you face there?

Baltimore was impacted, as I mentioned in the prepared remarks, by the Japanese earthquake and tsunami and steel production there.

We anticipate demand coming back, and it is coming back.

So we -- looking ahead we do see Baltimore doing better as we move ahead.

One of the constraints in terms of the fourth quarter, although it is very minor, is we have been doing a good bit of work on one of the loaders at Lamberts Point.

That is about to conclude and it shouldn't have an impact, but it won't lead to any acceleration.

Thanks.

And as my follow-up, I guess on the comp and benefit, on a per carload basis we saw the productivity improved sequentially from Q2 to Q3.

Could you talk a little bit about how shall we should be thinking about that line item looking forward into Q4?

Can we see continued momentum on the productivity gains given the, I guess, moderation in overall trainees that you guys have?

Well, I think your point is a valid one.

As Mark showed you, we will see some moderation in hiring in the fourth quarter, but at the same time we are doing some hiring on the mechanical and engineering side.

Next year we expect our overall T&E headcount to be flat.

We may see some modest increases next year in engineering and mechanical, particularly as we work through our comp and as our -- through our capital programs.

We will also have to look at things like incentive compensation and some issues there in terms of where we were in the fourth quarter.

Alright, that's fair.

Thanks for the time, guys.

Ken Hoexter, Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

Congrats on the great results and the solid quarter.

Don, if we can dig into intermodal just for a second, you talked about seeing increased retail activity.

I just want to understand, is that aided by the Heartland Corridor or is that overall?

And you mentioned you expect it to grow greater than the economy.

Is that despite the loss of the Maersk business in 2012 or is -- I just want to understand what that comment entails.

Thanks.

Well, as I mentioned, our domestic intermodal business was up 13% in the quarter.

And as I also mentioned that is being driven from highway conversions, predominantly in our Eastern network.

And the corridors that got mentioned entail a lot of that growth.

With respect to the international market, that was up 7% in the quarter.

And that is based on some seasonal demand increases that we have seen.

We have described the fall peak in terms of being a fall mount as opposed to a fall peak, and I think that pretty much still falls into that category.

But we anticipate intermodal growth certainly exceeding GDP and economic growth going ahead as we get into 2012 and beyond.

Okay, great, thank you.

For a follow-up, just on the digging into the export coal for a second, can you divide up what is contract, spot?

Is this all spot on the met side -- I just want to understand -- or is it part of that April to March contract here?

Because I just want to understand, at Baltimore can you see a bounce back in terms of those lost volumes because of the tsunami/hurricane, other impacts or is that just lost volumes?

In other words, I guess to the prior question, should we expect makeup volumes?

Well, I don't think you will see makeup volumes for the balance of this year.

I think as we get into 2012, stockpiles will be such that as Japanese auto production and steel demand continues to ramp back up, we will see demand commensurate for coking coal.

So I think there are two things that work going forward.

We had a flood impact that was about 2,000 cars coming into Baltimore during the third quarter.

We may make a little of that up in the fourth quarter, but I would say that the market side of this with respect to Japanese demand, we will see some improvement but it will take some time to get that replaced.

Wonderful, I appreciate the time.

Jason Segal, Dahlman Rose.

A couple of quick questions here.

One, on the productivity side, I am trying to parse out the drivers.

Obviously, you are pricing above cost inflation here.

But also you have seemed to push a lot more freight onto areas like the Heartland Corridor, which a lot is double stacked and you're getting benefit there, plus a lot of your trainees are coming online working.

If you are to bucket them could you split it out for us what has been driving the main productivity here at Norfolk Southern?

Well, I think the productivity gains that we have been seeing are to some extent influenced by the fluidity of the network, which is much improved.

And that is largely a result of the new -- of the crews that we have got coming online, as well as some new locomotives that we have put into service.

Clearly we feel very comfortable with our intermodal network, with our stack capability.

I think we are -- I think, what, Don -- 98% cleared right now.

We are 93%.

93%.

We finish Columbus on (multiple speakers).

We will be 98% here soon.

That is a big productivity driver on the intermodal side.

But if I look at where we are in terms of our productivity going forward, going back to the last question, we have done a lot of catch-up hiring over the past 18 months as we have shown you.

We have done a lot of investment in assets and some in -- a good bit of infrastructure.

And I think that is the long-term key to driving productivity.

Okay, now you said Columbus and Cincinnati is going to drive you to 98%.

Is that going to be in 4Q?

Be complete by the end of the year.

Yes.

So it is probably more of a 2012 impact for you then.

Correct.

Okay, fantastic.

Gentlemen, thank you for your time.

Ben Hartford, Robert W.

Baird.

I was hoping to get some perspective on the recent Conway Yard dispute to the extent that a disruption at the yard is likely to take place, and whether you have any sort of visibility or idea as to the timing of a resolution to the dispute?

Actually, the dispute has been elongated somewhat as far as resolution with the retarders and employees involved in what we call skate operations.

And that looks like it is going to be pushed off for a couple of months or so.

But as far as anything that is disruptive, we don't see anything in terms of disruption coming from it.

If anything, it just -- it prolongs the efficiencies that we hope to gain down the road as a result of getting rid of these things that have way out lasted their usefulness back in history.

So we are just continuing to -- we will continue to do what we are required to do in terms of using individuals in the operation that don't add as much value as we would like.

And at some point down the road we will just have a more efficient operation, but it just gets pushes out -- it gets pushed out a little bit further.

Can you just provide some context to this dispute?

Are these types of yard disputes or disputes maybe by a local in a given location, are they common?

Are these disputes that can take place and take place with some frequency, but have little disruption in the end, or is this something that you have seen were recently where the union might try to claw back some of the previous agreed-upon arrangements of the agreement?

No, this is very much a localized issue.

And in terms of its magnitude, it is small.

It is important that we resolve it from a productivity standpoint.

We want to be as productive at that particular yard as we can.

That is the only yard in all of our system where we are required by law to employ additional employees in order to handle that -- this particular function.

It is the only yard we have.

So it is just from the systemwide standpoint it is not real material.

Great, thanks for the time.

Chris Wetherbee, Citigroup.

Don, you mentioned the coal stockpiles on the utility network.

I was just getting curious about the order of magnitude at some of those below targeted levels.

And then maybe if you could comment a bit about the difference between the north and the south.

It looks like more northern utility are below target than southern utilities, but it sounded like that favorable benefit of going south is going to continue onto the fourth quarter.

I am just curious, a little bit of color there please.

The stronger demand for southern utilities will continue.

They have taken more coal this year then the north with respect to a percentage increase.

So we are going to continue to see the dynamic of southern utility to northern utility be there.

And the stockpiles in the north are lower than the stockpiles in the South.

And I will tell you that in terms of days that is 28 days, which is below the target.

28 days is the south or on average?

On a combined average.

Okay, okay, that is helpful.

And what -- just quickly as far as the duration of this mix shift for you does this stick around into the first quarter or is it a little bit difficult to tell based on how volumes are trending so far?

I didn't catch that question.

Could you repeat it?

Sure, just curious if this benefit of longer lengths of haul to the southern utilities sticks around for more than just the fourth quarter.

Is it a comp issue as you look at last year, or is it something that is a little bit more difficult to tell based on the level of volumes we are seeing right now?

Well, you know, the length of haul is going to be constant.

Our utilities will have a longer haul through the south just as they did this year, so the year-over-year benefit in terms of RPU will be comparable.

Sure.

Okay.

All right, that is helpful.

And then I guess, Wick, you commented a little bit on the headcount perspective for 2012.

I am just curious, assuming we have a modest GDP level and Don's outlook for GDP plus holds the case, what are your thoughts about staffing growth relative to the attrition you should see in the workforce naturally in 2012?

I would tell you that as Mark said, our projections are that in terms of total T&E headcount we will level out about January.

We will see qualified employees continue to tick up and the number of trainees to go down slightly.

But we would anticipate that on the T&E side that that overall count that we are looking at in January is good to handle our projected 2012 volumes and probably beyond.

I think I did mention that we are still reviewing our engineering and mechanical hiring.

That is to some extent a function of capital programs and to some extent a function of locomotive maintenance requirements.

So ex-attrition we may see some modest increase in those numbers, but that is not determined completely yet.

Okay, great.

That is very helpful.

Thanks for the time, guys.

I appreciate it.

Matt Troy, Susquehanna Financial Group.

I had two questions on intermodal.

I guess from a very simple or conceptual standpoint, could you just help me, I am trying to think about profitability as this business continues to grow and gains critical mass and moves from arguably one of your less profitable businesses from an industry perspective to something that is a little bit more closer to corporate average.

What are the economics of running a double stack train?

What I mean by that is if you have 100 flats, your revenue obviously is going to be what it be when you charge a certain rate.

But what is the running cost or the unit cost, varible cost for actually going from full single stack to a double stack configuration, what is the step up?

Well, that double stack is the most efficient mode in which ran intermodal.

I would not want to get into the delta in cost, but I will tell you that it is our objective to stack as much traffic as possible.

Right, that is certainly the objective, but you seem to be here now in terms of the quarter buildout.

Maybe if I were take the question more broadly, what -- in terms of the articulated goals you had for traffic patterns in your quarters what -- where are you running relative to those goals, and maybe what percentage of your business currently is single stack that now could go double stack?

There are two things that work there.

One is the 53 foot platform car supply, and the other is making sure we get the right box on the right car.

We have initiatives in place to address both of those.

And we do see an opportunity to improve stacking and that is within our internal goals.

But you also have to keep in mind that our premium traffic, which is growing as well, is generally not stacked and it is trailer traffic, which will not be stacked.

Not in the short run at least.

Right.

But is it fair to say then that given the investment with these corridors open 98% of the network double stack capable by year-end that we can almost think of this as an industry or Norfolk specific tipping point in that profitability should move perhaps better than volume growth on a one-for-one basis as you have got critical mass and the investments made?

Well, certainly density and maximizing stacks will help in that regard.

And as I mentioned, those are both objectives that we are pursuing.

Got it.

I cheated and asked a third.

Thanks for the time.

Walter Spracklin, RBC Capital Markets.

Just two good questions here.

First on -- Wick, you mentioned a healthy budget for your capital spent next year.

When you look forward -- and perhaps, Don, you can chime in here -- when you look forward to your markets going into the year what areas are you getting most excited about and you want to allocate capital perhaps in a region, or more importantly, on a segment basis?

Where do you really want to put that -- those healthy dollars to work going into next year?

Well, as we look at our capital requirements next year in terms of asset investment in particular, I think we have talked for a number of years now about reinvestment in our coal fleet.

We have a substantial portion of our fleet that is life expiring over the next few years.

We are going to be buying a significant number of coal cars next year.

We have got investments that we are making -- or we planning on making in our automotive fleet.

Our automotive business is good and we think the automotive industry is going to continue to head -- to head up.

We are talking a lot about investment in intermodal.

One of the things I would point out is that while we have -- we will end up with 98% of the network cleared in terms of our corridor strategy, we still have a significant amount of investment under way in intermodal terminals at Birmingham, Memphis, Greencastle, Pennsylvania, we will be investing there.

We are looking at investments in some intermodal equipment as well.

What else from an equipment standpoint, Don?

More zeroing in on your growth areas where you really focus -- what areas do you see the most growth in 2012 do you want to allocate capital to?

Well, we're going to continue to allocate a lot in just what I would call core system investments, significant technology investments, more infrastructure investments which will open up all of our business.

We are clearly looking at the Marcellus Shale opportunity, which has been very good for us so far, in terms of possibly additional terminals, additional equipment to make sure we can handle all of the growth we anticipate there.

It will be a wide range of investment opportunities.

The other thing, which I mentioned, of course that it will be one of the things that we will -- and perhaps this is perhaps unfortunate, drive the robustness of our budget next year is a big investment in positive train control.

right, the second question, moving over to Jim, I guess, is looking at your share buyback was pretty good -- pretty healthy there this quarter.

To what extent now that you have got just a cash balance running around $250 million now, what extent are you going to dip into leverage now to fund a continued -- well, maybe you could tell me, what is a good run rate for your share buyback in a year, and to what extent will you be using leverage to fund that buyback?

Sure.

Well, our financial strategy has been to utilize cash from operations first for reinvestment in the business, obviously, and then to pay our dividend at target payout ratio of about one-third, and then to use incremental free cash flow for buybacks, along with cash on hand.

And we used both incremental free cash flow and cash on hand, but not incremental borrowing capacity in the third quarter to do them both.

Now going forward as EBITDA and EBIT and funds from operations grow we will have additional borrowing capacity that we can devote to share repurchases without altering our target capital structure.

So we will have some flexibility there to do additional buybacks as well.

So you don't see increasing your -- the (inaudible) component of your capital structure in a percentage basis in --?

No, we are not -- debt to total capitalization is a little bit different.

That may tend to drift up even as other credit metrics stay stable.

But our objective with respect to debt to EBITDA or FFO to debt and interest coverage would be to maintain fairly stable credit metrics.

Perfect.

Okay, that's my questions.

Thanks.

Chris Ceraso, Credit Suisse.

Is there anything in the contract or the pending contracts with labor that addresses the health care cost inflation?

This seems to consistently be one of the areas where your cost is growing the fastest.

There is certainly some components of health care plan design changes in the UTU agreement, which while they are, I would describe from a dollar standpoint, as relatively modest, they are nonetheless meaningful in that they start to establish a plan in which people will start thinking more about the dollars they are spending, and hopefully make better decisions in terms of expanding health care dollars.

That is a significant change.

And as well I say I think the economic impact will be modest, certainly on our employees.

To the extent that we have plans, as we do with our management plan, that have people start to think about their own pocket as they think about health care, that is a meaningful change.

And over the longer term we would hope that would moderate some of these trends.

Have you given any thought, Wick, to maybe more meaningful changes, let's say for this new employees come into the business having a different type of program for new employees that may be more resembles a 401(k) type style for health care?

Well, the issue, we have made and continue to make changes in the plan for our non-agreement workforce, with significant wellness incentives and I think a lot of good things.

The issue with the health care plan, the national plan which covers all of our contract workers is it is a negotiated plan.

And the rails cannot unilaterally make changes.

They have to be part of our labor negotiations.

And in fact, health care plan changes are a big part of the current round.

So if we could do things differently in terms of plan design we would, but we can't do that unilaterally.

Okay, and then just one housekeeping item.

Do you have the pre- and post-tax dollar amounts for the gain on the property sale here in the quarter?

Sure.

The one we mentioned, the sale of land in Ohio was $24 million pretax.

And then is that just at your 38% rate?

(inaudible).

Okay, thank you.

Keith Schoonmaker, Morningstar, Inc.

Could you comment on your intermodal growth, 13% domestic and 7% international?

Is this in particular lanes, the domestic, in particular industry verticals?

Also, is FedEx a material portion of this or is that too early in the stage of development?

The growth on the intermodal was pretty much across the network.

The international was at all of our ports -- to and from all ports.

We had a heavier increase -- percentage increase in our local lanes in the quarter.

And then with respect to the domestic business, as depicted on the corridor slide, we are seeing growth across those corridors and across the network.

It is fairly balanced growth.

Our premium business, which would include UPS and FedEx, continues to grow.

Great, thanks.

I guess a second then.

We have asked a bit about double stacking, but I would like to ask about the other plane.

Can you comment on train lengths or weights, maybe a year-over-year comparison, and any actions that might extend this metric without compromising on-time delivery?

Let me give you a little bit of information on that.

We are -- if you look at our merchandise business, we are running train length-wise just a little bit under what we did a year ago.

And on the intermodal side, just a little over, so not a great deal of difference there.

And the best part of it is we have got plenty of room.

If you look at it on the average, we are in the 4,500 range merchandise and 5,500, 5,700 range intermodal-wise.

And not to say there aren't some big chains out there because there are, but plenty of room to grow in both of those areas.

Any actions that would extend those?

More business.

All right, thank you.

And Don and his group are doing a darn good job of bringing it to us.

So that is what we are trying to do.

And you know, train length works in our favor, but like we always say, it is all about velocity.

So we put a network plan together that maximizes our efficiency and allows us to get assets turns as high as we can get them.

And to the extent we can do that and grow our train length at the same time, that is what we are working on doing.

Great, thanks.

Gary Chase, Barclays Capital.

I wanted to ask a couple of quick ones.

First, Jim, on the comp and ben line looked quite a bit lower than what we were -- what we had been expecting.

Just wondering if there was a stock comp component in there that we should expect to reverse as we head into 4Q?

Not stock comp, but instead of comp, yes.

In the 4Q you would be expecting higher incentive compensation.

That mostly reflects last year's lower incentive compensation, so that one stands out, but not in the third quarter.

So when you are -- when you say higher were you referring to like year-on-year?

Yes.

The absolute level shouldn't be materially changed from period to period, is that fair?

Well, no, I think we may see a little bit higher comp and benefits expense sequentially as well in the fourth quarter.

Okay.

And then just switching gears.

I wondered, Don, if you could give us a sense of is any material portion of the book now still trafficking on some of the older surcharges that were at much lower triggers or have you worked through the majority of that and you have got most of the book rebased at this stage?

It really varies, and it depends on the contract duration that was in place.

So we have many variations of fuel surcharge application.

Is there a way to characterize how many of them are close to the current [cares] program you've got and how much are still trafficking on say more than three-year-old program designs?

No, we don't have that data here handy.

Okay, thanks, everybody.

Scott Group, Wolfe Trahan & Co.

So, Don, I just wanted to follow up on one of the earlier questions on utility coal volumes.

With stockpiles at northern utilities more below target, it makes sense or it seems logical that at some point you will see volume start to be better going to the north than to the south.

And just wondering what is the visibility on when you think that infection occurs.

And how should we think about that.

Is there a way to think about how much longer is it to the south versus the north or what is the difference in revenue per car sort of south versus the north?

It is about a two-thirds differential in an RPU basis, with the utility south being about one-third higher than the north, because of the length of haul.

And the first question, certainly it depends on the burn with respect to winter weather.

But we are already beginning to see weather turn that way in the north.

And you are absolutely correct, we will see northern utilities start taking more coal because of their stockpiles where they are.

But with 36% of the southern utilities still below target as well, we still expect that coal to move as well, even though we have seen a higher volume of that coal this year relative to northern utility.

What is the split between northern and southern coal?

In terms of the total book?

Yes.

In terms of the overall volume it is very close to being even in terms of the volumes.

And then just a quick one on intermodal.

The corridor growth is obviously really impressive.

Can you give us a sense, what percentage of the intermodal book is -- includes these corridors?

And then what inning of this do think we are in?

Can you see a multiyear period of Heartland growing doubling and Crescent growing at a 30% clip?

When you look at the corridor map it is a wide net that pretty much reflects the primary quarters over our railroad.

So we are seeing growth in that corridor network, which essentially covers most of our major network.

With respect to where we are in converting truckload business, I will tell you that, and as you probably already know, the truckload market is well over $600 billion in the US.

And we are just beginning the efforts to work with motor carriers to place that business in the most fuel efficient and environmentally friendly service, which is intermodal.

Okay, thanks for the time.

I appreciate it.

Cherilyn Radbourne, TD Securities.

I wanted to just ask you a quick question on resourcing.

And really just curious whether you have made any tweaks to your resource plan in the context of a slower economic growth outlook, or whether you're basically seeing continued strength across your business and driving forward with the plans you would have established at the beginning of the year?

I think it is safe to say that with the volume growth that we have seen already this year, and the outlook that we have for our volumes in 2012, that we are continuing to invest in a fairly steady and strong way in our resources.

Certainly you have seen that in our hiring.

And you have seen that in our equipment acquisitions and in our investments in technology.

And we have -- we don't see any reason right now to moderate our investment policy.

Okay, thanks.

That is it for me.

Neal Deaton, BB&T Capital Markets.

Congratulations, again, on the quarter.

I just wanted to follow back up on -- someone mentioned earlier about the Maersk contract going away in early 2012.

I just went to see what kind of an impact that is going to have on your international intermodal volumes.

I don't know if you're comfortable sharing what percentage of your total international business Maersk represents.

Well, Maersk is a good customer and will continue to be a customer of ours going forward.

We will continue to have a good relationship with them.

And I will tell you that based on our projection for next year the impact will be less than 100,000 units of intermodal business for us.

Okay, that is helpful.

And are you -- what are you doing to prepare for that?

Are there other shipping lines that you don't already partner with that you trying to forge a relationship with, and how is that going?

The marketplace is always dynamic.

Fair enough.

Okay, congratulations again.

David Vernon, AllianceBernstein.

It is actually with Sanford Bernstein.

But the revenue per ton mile on the coal traffic, the quarter-to-quarter improvement there was around close to 2%.

And if you think that fuel wasn't much of a change quarter-to-quarter that looks like an 8% a year annualized rate of increase.

Was there anything specific as far as contract renegotiations on the utility side that might have helped add to that quarter-to-quarter rate of improvement on the revenue per ton mile?

No, no significant contract changes.

Was there anything -- was there any material difference in the rate of increase between the utility traffic and the export traffic as far as the rate at which the rates actually went up?

Well, we had the 23% increase in volume, the 25% increase in tonnage on our export business, and our utility South which has a longer haul also was up.

But as I mentioned too, we had a 1% increase in our domestic met coal for the quarter, which is -- has a higher revenue per ton mile because it is shorter haul.

And then could you maybe talk a little bit about the rate at which intermodal train start to increase year-over-year to accommodate the high rate of carload growth?

We had -- as far as our intermodal operations we had a -- what is the percentage increase?

We have had about a 2.5% to 3% increase in crew starts on intermodal against a much higher volume increase.

Yes, that is the ratio I was trying to get at.

Thank you very much.

Donald Broughton, Avondale Partners.

Gentlemen, great quarter.

Mostly all the good questions have been taken, so I am going to ask something a little more esoteric.

I just gross ton miles continued to grow very nicely -- gross ton miles per train hour.

And revenue per ton miles per train hour did as well.

Pretty much lockstep, so it wasn't really mix.

Exactly how high do you think you can take that number?

You are damned near at 90.

Can you get to -- gross ton miles per train hour, can you get to 95?

Is 100 possible?

Where are both GTMs and RTMs per train hour headed?

Well, we would hope, as I ponder you more esoteric question, that they're headed up.

Well, let's hope so.

I don't know that we have a specific number in mind, but I will tell you that in -- while our network is still far more fluid, we still have a good ways to go in terms of taking the velocity of the network to where we want it to be.

And clearly velocity plays directly into that train hour metric.

And the other side, as Mark mentioned, is that we have -- still have substantial capacity to clean our merchandise train network in terms of length.

So it is somewhat dependent upon mix.

It is -- to somewhat extent it is dependent on mix, but even in intermodal we can do more, so I am not going to try to give you a specific example or specific number rather, but I do think that we have the opportunity to take that number on up a good bit more.

Because I know, the conversation I had with Deb Butler at the [Altuna] meeting, she was laying out how 10% velocity over the next two years was possible just through the technology initiatives.

That would imply you could take gross ton mile per hour to 100 at some point in the next 8 to 12 quarters.

That is the way the math would work, and I don't think it is out of reach to improve our velocity by 10%.

Right now we are looking at train speeds in the 21.5 mile an hour range.

A 10% increase there without even adding length to our trains -- tonnage to our trains would take us up above 23, and that is a number we have seen before.

So I think that is a very rational analysis.

Fantastic.

Thank you very much and good luck in the fourth quarter.

Jeff Kauffman, Sterne Agee.

(inaudible) in for Jeff.

I just had one question for you.

I wanted to know if you could put some numbers around the size of the potential (inaudible) opportunity, maybe in terms of revenue or carloads?

The market in Marcellus Shale and then, of course, Utica Shale coming after that, which is just beginning to develop with some -- with a very few wells drilled, we see that continuing to ramp up.

And our volumes are up significantly in that area, and we feel that will continue as the gas operations expand in Marcellus and Utica.

I would rather not cite the specific volumes associated with that.

Thank you so much.

The rest of my questions have been answered.

You have no further questions at this time.

I would like to turn the floor back over to management for any closing comments.

Well, thanks for all of your patience.

We look forward to talking with you next quarter and talking with a lot of you in the interim.

Thanks.

Ladies and gentlemen, this does conclude today's teleconference.

You may disconnect your lines at this time.

Thank you for your participation.