CSX Transportation and Asbestos Exposure: Railroad Workers and Occupational Risk

Company History

CSX Transportation is one of the largest freight railroad operators in the United States, with a network spanning more than 20,000 route miles primarily across the eastern half of the country. The company as it exists today is the product of a lengthy series of railroad mergers and acquisitions that unfolded across the twentieth century, consolidating dozens of smaller regional lines into a single major carrier.

The corporate lineage of CSX includes several historically significant railroads, among them the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway, the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, the Seaboard Coast Line, and the Louisville and Nashville Railroad, among others. These predecessor lines each operated independently for generations before being brought under common ownership through a series of transactions that culminated in the formation of CSX Corporation in 1980 and its principal railroad subsidiary, CSX Transportation, in 1986.

Because CSX Transportation is the legal successor to many of these earlier railroads, it has inherited not only their physical infrastructure and operational territories but also their litigation history. This corporate continuity is significant for workers who were employed by predecessor lines decades before the CSX name existed, as asbestos litigation records reflect claims arising from exposures that occurred under the banner of the Chesapeake and Ohio, the Baltimore and Ohio, and other constituent railroads going back to the 1940s and beyond.

The railroads that eventually became CSX were major industrial employers throughout the postwar era, operating extensive repair shops, roundhouses, and maintenance facilities where workers performed hands-on work with locomotives, rail cars, and supporting infrastructure on a daily basis.

Asbestos-Containing Products

Railroad operations through the mid-twentieth century relied heavily on asbestos-containing materials, and the predecessor companies that formed CSX Transportation were no exception. According to asbestos litigation records, workers employed across these railroad lines encountered asbestos in a wide variety of applications throughout their careers.

Plaintiffs alleged that asbestos-containing materials were present in and around steam and diesel locomotives, including insulation applied to boilers, pipes, steam lines, and exhaust manifolds. Court filings document that locomotive cab insulation, firebox insulation, and brake shoes used on rolling stock frequently contained asbestos during the decades when these materials were standard across the industry.

According to asbestos litigation records, insulation products used in engine rooms, boiler rooms, and mechanical compartments of both locomotives and marine vessels associated with railroad ferry operations were manufactured with asbestos content. Plaintiffs alleged that pipe covering, block insulation, and thermal lagging used throughout railroad maintenance facilities contained asbestos, and that workers were regularly exposed to these materials during installation, removal, and repair activities.

Court filings document that asbestos-containing gaskets were widely used in locomotive and rail car assembly and maintenance, and that packing materials used to seal pipe joints and valve assemblies in rail equipment and shop facilities similarly contained asbestos. According to asbestos litigation records, floor tiles, ceiling panels, and roofing materials in railroad shops and administrative buildings constructed during the postwar period also incorporated asbestos.

Plaintiffs alleged that brake components — including brake shoes, brake linings, and clutch facings — used in locomotive and rail car maintenance through approximately the early 1980s contained asbestos. The handling, grinding, and replacement of these components was described in court filings as a source of significant fiber release in confined shop environments.

It should be noted that CSX Transportation and its predecessor companies did not manufacture these materials. The asbestos-containing products encountered by railroad workers were supplied by third-party manufacturers. However, according to asbestos litigation records, claims have been brought against CSX and its corporate predecessors based on allegations related to the selection, procurement, and use of these materials in railroad work environments.

Occupational Exposure

The railroads that became CSX Transportation employed large workforces in physically demanding trades where asbestos exposure was a routine occupational reality for much of the twentieth century. According to asbestos litigation records, the workers most frequently identified in claims against CSX and its predecessors include carmen, machinists, pipefitters, boilermakers, electricians, and laborers who worked in railroad repair shops, roundhouses, and maintenance facilities.

Plaintiffs alleged that carmen who inspected, assembled, and repaired rail cars worked alongside insulation materials and brake components containing asbestos on a daily basis, often in enclosed shop buildings with limited ventilation. Court filings document that machinists and boilermakers who serviced steam locomotives in the earlier decades of this period worked in close proximity to heavily insulated equipment, and that the removal and replacement of pipe and boiler insulation generated substantial amounts of airborne asbestos dust.

According to asbestos litigation records, pipefitters and insulators employed at railroad shops who cut, fitted, and applied insulation materials to pipe systems and mechanical components were among those with the most direct and sustained contact with asbestos-containing products. Plaintiffs alleged that these workers frequently mixed, handled, and applied asbestos-containing cements and lagging in the course of routine maintenance work.

Court filings document that bystander exposure was also a significant concern in railroad shop environments. Workers who were present in the same facilities as those performing insulation or brake work — even if their own tasks did not directly involve asbestos — were exposed to dust and fibers that settled on surfaces and circulated through the air of shared work areas.

The use of asbestos in railroad equipment and facilities continued through approximately the early 1980s, after which regulatory pressure and the development of alternative materials led to a gradual phase-out. Workers employed during the decades of peak use — roughly the 1940s through the late 1970s — are considered to have had the greatest potential for cumulative asbestos exposure over the course of a career.

Federal jurisdiction applies to railroad worker injury claims under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), which governs how railroad employees may bring suit against their employers for work-related injuries, including asbestos-related disease. This statutory framework differs from standard state workers’ compensation systems and affects the procedural options available to injured railroad workers and their families.

CSX Transportation has been a defendant in asbestos personal injury litigation across multiple jurisdictions. According to asbestos litigation records, claims have been filed against the company and its corporate predecessors on behalf of workers who developed mesothelioma, asbestosis, lung cancer, and related diseases following occupational exposures in railroad work environments.

Plaintiffs alleged that CSX and its predecessor railroads knew or should have known of the hazards associated with asbestos exposure in their facilities, and that insufficient steps were taken to warn workers or limit their contact with asbestos-containing materials. Court filings document that litigation has proceeded under FELA, which requires an injured worker to demonstrate that the employer’s negligence played some part in causing the injury.

CSX Transportation does not currently maintain an established asbestos bankruptcy trust fund. The company has continued to operate as a going concern and has not sought asbestos-related bankruptcy protection. This means that claims against CSX cannot be resolved through a trust fund submission process, and injured workers or their families who pursue claims against the company must do so through the civil litigation system.

It is important to note that workers exposed at railroad facilities may have been exposed to asbestos-containing products manufactured by third parties who have since established bankruptcy trusts. Many insulation manufacturers, gasket makers, and brake component suppliers whose products were used in railroad shops and on railroad equipment have created asbestos trust funds as part of their own bankruptcy proceedings. Claims against these manufacturers may be filed separately from and concurrently with any litigation involving CSX Transportation itself.

Workers who were employed by CSX Transportation or its predecessor railroads — including the Chesapeake and Ohio, Baltimore and Ohio, Seaboard Coast Line, Louisville and Nashville, and related lines — and who later developed mesothelioma, asbestosis, or lung cancer may have legal options available to them.

Because CSX Transportation has not established an asbestos trust fund, claims against the company proceed through civil litigation under FELA rather than through a trust submission process. Individuals considering such claims should consult with an attorney experienced in railroad asbestos litigation.

At the same time, workers may be eligible to file claims against asbestos bankruptcy trust funds established by the manufacturers of the specific products — insulation, gaskets, brake linings, and related materials — to which they were exposed during their railroad careers. Eligibility for trust fund claims typically depends on documented exposure to a specific manufacturer’s product and a confirmed diagnosis of an asbestos-related disease.

Mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases have long latency periods, often appearing decades after the original exposure. Workers who retired from railroad employment many years ago may only now be receiving diagnoses. Both litigation and trust fund claims are subject to statutes of limitations, and timing considerations make early legal consultation important for those seeking to protect their rights.