Pan Am Railways, For Sale/Acquisition/Merger?

newpylong wrote:

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:Does PAR still have any claim to the Barbers Yard property? The NECR Palmer interchange is quite likely going to move to Worcester out of convenience and cost-savings for both G&W and CSX (who can reduce presence @ Palmer by letting Framingham sort it instead). But that puts pressure on P&W's already tight space crunch in downtown. Barbers is far and away the juciest and easiest parcel for expansion and place to block interchange loads if they want to stay out of the way of general freight at Southbridge St. and IM down by the city dump. Did P&W get ownership + rights to do what they please with Barbers when they bought the lower Gardner Branch, or does it require PAR's blessing/back-scratching to make use of the property?

Why would moving interchange be a cost savings? Even if G&W acquires the P&W, you're still talking two different railroads (NECR to P&W) and a circuitous routing. Hauling NECR north tonnage all the way down to Willimantic and then up to Worcester does not make sense. CSX still has to go into Palmer for the Mass Central so I don't think moving the interchange would be a huge benefit to them either.

The interchange wouldn't like CLOSE, but it very well might be a win-win for CSX and G&W; CSX wouldn't have to pour as much resources (i.e: labor) to keep the interchange as open as much (like F-Line said), and G&W would keep the freight on their own system longer. Along with the opportunity to cut CSX out of the picture completely with some loads by transload/intermodal in Worcester. Circuitous routings just aren't as big of an issue for railroads, especially when in this case a detour down to Willimantic is actually not all that much of an increase in time or mileage, nor will it make much of a difference to the customer - might even be cheaper for them. Just look at how most freight has to get into New England from the west, now THAT'S circuitous.

bostontrainguy wrote:

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:

BandA wrote:Is Readville competitive?

It would be more competitive if Dept. of Conservation and Recreation dropped the truck ban that's been in effect on Neponset Valley Pkwy. since 1987 (at arm-twisting of then- Hyde Park City Councillor Tom Menino).

I was witness to that. Unsuspecting hard-working truck drivers were suddenly pulled over and fined just for doing their jobs. It was unfair and relentless. But I thought it was challenged and it was found that when the parkway was taken over (or given to the State) there was a provision to allow trucks perpetually. I thought it was eventually resolved in the trucks favor. No?

No. Truck ban still exists. And worse, Dedham has tightened its noose on truck traffic in the last couple years.

Truck road along the right-of-way to east side of Route 128 station?

I don't understand the obsession with bringing freight rail directly into Boston, with few exceptions (yes they are out there but not many) there will never be a large scale freight operation out of Boston. The major RDC/Warehouse/Transloads moved out of the city proper years and, hence the shift of rail operations towards areas of Worcester and Ayer. The armchairing here (and I'm certainly guilty) of looking at google maps and coming up with ludacris assumptions about huge freight volumes out of Boston proper is just railfan pipe dreaming.

Doubtful we'll be seeing much heavy industry or major distribution facilities locating inside the 128 beltway anytime soon and yes, that is exactly why facility expansions have been in places like Worcester, Westboro, Ayer, etc where real estate costs and highway congestion are much more manageable. If there's any significant growth to be had in the Boston area, it will likely center around waste products like MSW, C&D and contaminated soil, possibly Ethanol to Revere and maybe bulk products to the Everett/Chelsea waterfronts.

495 is the true industry belt of "Boston" now... if you can even consider it that. For the region's consumer goods market, intermodal is the best fit, and Ayer and Worcester are positioned strategically to distribute to most of the region. I do think there is a market for bulk goods, the new G&U being the prime example of this. Tighe also comes to mind as well as the proposed Woburn transload operation. Still compared to the Intermodal revenues handled out of Ayer and Worcester, even successful operations (G&U) are small potatoes to NS/CSX.

In the event of a Pan Am split, Ayer is the logical ending point. This gives NS complete control over the high dollar intermodal market while allowing a regional operation to grow the transload business Ayer-Portland (far more than NS would care to) yet still reap the benefits of consistent bridge traffic carloads. Holding onto the Worcester main as well allows for rate competition between CSX and NS which overall is good for the customer, and in one last ditch reference to the G&U, is something they desperately lack.

YamaOfParadise wrote:The interchange wouldn't like CLOSE, but it very well might be a win-win for CSX and G&W; CSX wouldn't have to pour as much resources (i.e: labor) to keep the interchange as open as much (like F-Line said), and G&W would keep the freight on their own system longer. Along with the opportunity to cut CSX out of the picture completely with some loads by transload/intermodal in Worcester. Circuitous routings just aren't as big of an issue for railroads, especially when in this case a detour down to Willimantic is actually not all that much of an increase in time or mileage, nor will it make much of a difference to the customer - might even be cheaper for them. Just look at how most freight has to get into New England from the west, now THAT'S circuitous.

Exactly. CSX never passes up an opportunity to trim costs for things not square-on related to IM at Worcester and West Springfield. They squeeze Framingham to a bare minimum functional staff base and equipment assignments, and that's still the ground-zero most mission-critical yard east of Selkirk for sorting and staging locals. They would probably be the initiating party making goo-goo eyes at P&W/NECR to move the interchange to Worcester so they can downsize staffing at Palmer to just the bare-minimum MECR interchange and other onsite miscellany that needs to be there. Jacksonville is positively lizard-brained about that kind of consolidation.

bostontrainguy wrote:Truck road along the right-of-way to east side of Route 128 station?

There's no need to. Stroke of one pen to lift the parkway ban and it's a 5-minute trip to every highway interchange in the land. The parkway has very little traffic, and Route 138 is an overbuilt load-bearing state road. The route to the interchange is already is built like a haul road.


This isn't about force-fitting freight that doesn't feel compelled to be in Boston. Readville has had many potential distributors over the years DIRECTLY INQUIRE about setting up shop there, only to have the conversation just as abruptly end at the truck ban. Lift the ban and CSX doesn't have to lift a finger...somebody in the transload biz will come calling of their own volition, because they've already fielded calls like that before. The only thing stopping it is MassDOT reading its own State Rail Plan and State Freight Plan documents ID'ing these selfsame documented opportunities there, and exercising discretion over the sub-agencies and local institutions that can't pull heads from arse about 4000 ft. of state-maintained asphalt.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:

bostontrainguy wrote:Truck road along the right-of-way to east side of Route 128 station?

There's no need to. Stroke of one pen to lift the parkway ban and it's a 5-minute trip to every highway interchange in the land. The parkway has very little traffic, and Route 138 is an overbuilt load-bearing state road. The route to the interchange is already is built like a haul road.

So You are Quoting 350CMR4.01(10)No person shall operate a truck, bus, camper, trailer or mobile home or any vehicle with a
seating capacity of more than 12 persons upon any road, driveway, parkway, boulevard or bridge
under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan District Commission which is restricted to pleasure
vehicles only, provided, however, that "pickup trucks," so-called, having a gross vehicle weight
of 5,000 pounds or less and a maximum overall height of seven feet or less are permitted. Those
vehicles which are prohibited may gain access to a destination situated on, or only accessible by
the use of a restricted roadway, by entering from the nearest unrestricted roadway and exiting in
the same manner; provided, however, that in no case shall a person operate a vehicle having a
gross vehicle weight in excess of ten tons upon any roadway of the Metropolitan District
Commission except by express written consent of said Commission.

It's not DOT it's DCR its a parkway for the enjoyment of reservations in the area the roads are not designed to handle truck traffic. That is not as easy as a stroke of the pen. You need hearings and public comment before trucks are allowed, unless your going to the stores on Truman Parkway or Dunkin Donuts.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:

bostontrainguy wrote:Truck road along the right-of-way to east side of Route 128 station?

There's no need to. Stroke of one pen to lift the parkway ban and it's a 5-minute trip to every highway interchange in the land. The parkway has very little traffic, and Route 138 is an overbuilt load-bearing state road. The route to the interchange is already is built like a haul road.


This isn't about force-fitting freight that doesn't feel compelled to be in Boston. Readville has had many potential distributors over the years DIRECTLY INQUIRE about setting up shop there, only to have the conversation just as abruptly end at the truck ban. Lift the ban and CSX doesn't have to lift a finger...somebody in the transload biz will come calling of their own volition, because they've already fielded calls like that before. The only thing stopping it is MassDOT reading its own State Rail Plan and State Freight Plan documents ID'ing these selfsame documented opportunities there, and exercising discretion over the sub-agencies and local institutions that can't pull heads from arse about 4000 ft. of state-maintained asphalt.

More opportunities in real estate and finance than logistics and supply chain. Also willing to bet there is a hood reason why the folks calling the shots at the DOT, and other city planning groups are where they are, they aren't stupid (as you suggest). There are more interests at stake than just railroads or freight carriers, gotta see the forest from the trees. Also, same goes for those 'lizard-brained' folks in Jacksonville, good reason they don't spend their free time on online railroad boards and trust me, they are some top notch talent down there.

(Last Readville post before the PAR "Who wants to make a deal?" show goes on, I swear. . .)

Red Wing wrote:So You are Quoting 350CMR4.01(10)No person shall operate a truck, bus, camper, trailer or mobile home or any vehicle with a
seating capacity of more than 12 persons upon any road, driveway, parkway, boulevard or bridge
under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan District Commission which is restricted to pleasure
vehicles only, provided, however, that "pickup trucks," so-called, having a gross vehicle weight
of 5,000 pounds or less and a maximum overall height of seven feet or less are permitted. Those
vehicles which are prohibited may gain access to a destination situated on, or only accessible by
the use of a restricted roadway, by entering from the nearest unrestricted roadway and exiting in
the same manner; provided, however, that in no case shall a person operate a vehicle having a
gross vehicle weight in excess of ten tons upon any roadway of the Metropolitan District
Commission except by express written consent of said Commission.

It's not DOT it's DCR its a parkway for the enjoyment of reservations in the area the roads are not designed to handle truck traffic. That is not as easy as a stroke of the pen. You need hearings and public comment before trucks are allowed, unless your going to the stores on Truman Parkway or Dunkin Donuts.

Yes, actually it is literally as easy as stroke of a pen. Because pen strokes are what determines the "restricted" roadways list referenced by the bolded verbiage above in that law. The MDC placed Neponset Valley Parkway on its restricted list in 1987 where it previously was not. Not all DCR parkways are on the restricted list, and many have come on and off the restricted list throughout the years...some of those changes informed by the need to sustain economically critical truck activity that has no plausible or non-destructive alternative routes. Changes to the restricted list were made at MDC/DCR discretion with stroke of a pen. When Neponset Valley Parkway was slapped with the restriction in '87 there were no public hearings or public comment period. As bostontrainguy's story a few posts up recounts, they just unilaterally made the decision in private, announced, and started ticketing truck drivers one morning. It was a stroke-of-pen political vendetta hatched by City pols and MDC administrators, not a public process. Of course a revisiting of that decision would be stupid not to include full and comprehensive public comment, because needlessly pissing off one's constituents is bad politics. But guess what...when bad politics has felt oh-so-right they haven't shied away one bit from skipping over that whole inconvenient commenting to push an agenda for somebody in power. The MDC was disbanded and replaced by DCR and its far weaker agency charter because unaccountability and score-settling like that ran rampant and rancid through that old fiefdom.

Furthermore, not all parkways are under DCR control anymore. 8 of them were transferred to MassDOT by the General Court a few years ago and are now under MassDOT functional classification. So not only can the Executive Branch direct the DCR top-down to remove something from the restricted list with the stroke of a pen, a bill routed through the Legislature and signed with stroke of pen can change a DCR road into a MassDOT road if need be.


As a sick and/or whimsical reminder of what happened, check out Street View at the corner of the Meadow Rd./S&S access road and NV Pkwy. Yep...an old and faded "All Trucks Must Turn Right" sign dating back to the S&S Warehouse's opening--stamped at the bottom right corner with "MDC"--designating the now- three decades illegal truck route.

I think he meant one person can't simply undo this regulation by the stroke of a pen without the consent of the great population which would require several efforts to gather opinions and feedback to determine the impacts of such an act. 'Easier said than done' comes to mind.

That was my point, a stroke of the pen isn't how anything like this is done anymore. But there are public hearings to repeal all the old MDC and DEM CMR's and replace them with new DCR CMR's. So make your voice heard if you want trucks on parkways

Just a quick note, heavy tractor trailers use the VFW Parkway to access the Home Depot and the small industrial park in West Roxbury every day. MBTA buses also use this section. School buses use even more of the Parkway to get to the high school. I know the NIMBYs in that densely populated area are very tough to deal with, but they couldn't stop it. Conversely, the Neponset River Parkway literally has five houses on it! Maybe the Baker administration could open it up if someone showed a plan to bring 100 jobs to the site.

Checking Bing Maps, there are a handful of boxcars on the property so there is still some rail activity there. Does anyone know what businesses are there?

I guess this is a good example of a reciprocal switching candidate. Could NS/PAS serve a new transload here if utilizing the new rules? A "Produce Railexpress" type service competing with Chelsea would be interesting to see.

There's a couple rail tenants occupying small portion of the mostly vacant S&S space, and some misc. pickups served straight out of the yard. Slight uptick from the first post-S&S years when the yard was depressingly empty, but still pretty anemic because of the truck noose constricting shipping windows to such limited hours-per-day down Sprague/East St.'s in traffic-hostile Dedham. PAR customer MS Walker, being evicted from the Innerbelt in Somerville because of Green Line Extension construction claiming their building, has taken a relocation deal to S&S and will become a CSX-Readville customer. Not sure when the moving vans are scheduled to take them across town, but it'll be a welcome infusion of new activity in Boston-proper despite Somerville's and PAR's loss.