• CSX Acquisition of Pan Am Railways

  • Guilford Rail System changed its name to Pan Am Railways in 2006. Discussion relating to the current operations of the Boston & Maine, the Maine Central, and the Springfield Terminal railroads (as well as the Delaware & Hudson while it was under Guilford control until 1988). Official site can be found here: PANAMRAILWAYS.COM.
Guilford Rail System changed its name to Pan Am Railways in 2006. Discussion relating to the current operations of the Boston & Maine, the Maine Central, and the Springfield Terminal railroads (as well as the Delaware & Hudson while it was under Guilford control until 1988). Official site can be found here: PANAMRAILWAYS.COM.

Moderator: MEC407

  by CN9634
 
roberttosh wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 4:48 pm I just don't see it being feasible to run all that traffic from Rotterdam to Springfield. The amount of upgrading required, from track work, to signaling to clearances would be astronomical. In terms of the Castleton Bridge, these same sources also said it was down to one track which I am fairly certain is not the case.
Sure but we now know something for certain -- CSX is trying to make a deal. That is fact.

Whether you or I can see the reasoning or whatever doesn't matter since we know they are going after it, so all we can do is scratch our heads and try to figure out why.
  by F74265A
 
Yes, big upgrades would be needed to run Rotterdam to Springfield or via Ayer and Clinton to Worcester. But the line sale to MA, if it were true, would be a back door subsidy. And MA might pitch in more to help with the tunnel as well. If csx would have to foot the whole bill to rebuild the Hudson River bridge, maybe the math works for them to upgrade the Fitchburg and Worcester route with state help. State already rebuilt the conn river.

IF this speculation is true, what existing csx traffic moves via Springfield and what via Ayer/Clinton? At least the Brookfield racks would have to go Springfield
  by roberttosh
 
Keep in mind that if the bridge story is in fact true, that is also going to mean major operational headaches getting from Selkirk to Oak Point.
  by F74265A
 
in theory those trains could leave Selkirk going west, switch ends, then go down the big hill through Albany, across the Hudson and through the Amtrak station to head south on the east bank.
  by newpylong
 
They also could depart Selkirk on the Albany Secondary. Run around in Kenwood then shove up Bull Run onto the Schenectady line.
Last edited by newpylong on Wed Nov 11, 2020 6:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
  by roberttosh
 
That's going to be a lot of trains heading west out of Selkirk only to have to change ends to head back East. Can the Chicago line even handle that type of traffic flow?
  by newpylong
 
With PSR the number of trains has basically been cut in 1/3 there is plenty of capacity. But don't they only run one pair a day to Oak Point?
  by roberttosh
 
Instead of reinventing the wheel and dropping hundreds of millions on Pan Am (not to mention the upgrade costs) wouldn't it be easier to just use Amtrak line through Troy and original B&A line to avoid the bridge?
  by newpylong
 
The Post Road branch is single track and not rated for 286K. Not sure if cleared for stacks.
  by roberttosh
 
Understood, but I think it's safe to say it would be cheaper to upgrade than from Rotterdam Jct to Springfield.
  by F74265A
 
There is a big hill on the post road branch. Similarly there is a substantial grade just west of Albany . No idea how much they would affect operations but understand that were a factor in moving most freight off the route in the past. I recall pc or conrail even abandoned post road at one time snd it was rebuilt for Amtrak. The Fitchburg has the better alignment and grades from Albany. But it has the tunnel problem too
  by bostontrainguy
 
roberttosh wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 5:35 pm Keep in mind that if the bridge story is in fact true, that is also going to mean major operational headaches getting from Selkirk to Oak Point.
The Alfred H. Smith Memorial Bridge is almost a mile long and almost 100 years old. I think the story just maybe true and certainly might be a major consideration in this matter.
  by BM6569
 
Wouldn't it be cheaper/easier? to rebuild the Vorheesville running track? That would make a connection from PAS to Selkirk, right?
  by F74265A
 
Doesn’t that connect the former d&h, now NS main to the csx mainline just west of Selkirk? And the former d&h Albany line east of vorheeesville is a trail I think and still would not connect csx to pas
Last edited by MEC407 on Thu Nov 12, 2020 6:35 am, edited 1 time in total. Reason: unnecessary quoting
  by newpylong
 
Correct. Currently you if you came West out of Selkirk (if the connector was rebuilt) you could bang a left to go south on the D&H using the V. Runner. There never was a wye going the other way and that would just take you to Kenwood anyway. Same as going up the Albany Secondary which is intact.

They have four ways of getting to the B&M in New York, 3 require a runaround or shove. The only one that does not they would use the Albany Secondary to Kenwood, use the Bull Run connector to the Schenectady line, then crossover at 485 and run the D&H to Mechanicville.
  • 1
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 302