Pan Am Railways (PAR) Freight Traffic Volume

newpylong wrote: You just contradicted yourself by saying much of the information you have obtained is through assumption, and then claiming to have the most accurate answer on this subject. I can tell you in this case, you are incorrect. Do you think customer's needs changed the minute Pan Am Southern started up and began charging haulage rights? I don't think so. In the end, it may be better (faster) to go via Barber's, but this was done solely to avoid paying haulage and switching fees (the cars are being blocked and broken up in Selkirk now as opposed to Deerfield). To the railroad, the longer the line haul, the more money they make, so they almost rather send the traffic a longer route, regardless of customer needs. This is fact, not assumption.

Any additional fees added to the movement of traffic would be passed along to the customer. The customer would then make the decision to route the traffic a different way. The customer is notified of possible routings for its traffic and chooses the one that suits its needs.

I certainly did not contradict myself nor am I incorrect in my opinion of your statements. Your ranting and constant correcting of the other posters here does little more than speak volumes about your personality.

I am not impressed by your supposed interaction with employees or the like. I would not trade the knowledge gained from over 30 years of interest in the industry for some inside contacts.

You, of course, will no doubt respond in an attempt to have the last word on this topic to which I politely will let you have. Thank you

newpylong wrote:

roberttosh wrote:I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

straight from the horses mouth why the traffic is going that way, tough to argue with...

So.... if someone from PAR tells you that they are orchestrating the shift in CSXT interchange from ROTTJ to Barbers, then a long discussion that I had with a high-level CSXT Commercial contact, where I was told that their strategy going forward was to avoid PAS as much as possible and divert traffic to Barbers, is all a bunch of nonsense? As was pointed out earlier, it takes both railroads to construct rates, and while PAR may very well want to shift traffic to Barbers, they need CSXT's cooperation to make that a reality.

A few years back I posted about Ford leaving Ayer for Framingham months before that went public; last year I gave the heads up on Coal trains moving over CSXT to Springfield just before they commenced; and just last week I posted that CSXT would very soon be having a press release about their Mass relocation plans the day before it happened, so I think my track record for knowing what's going on at CSXT speaks for itself. As an aside, I was also the first person on the board to bring up the NS/PAR Patriot Corridor discussions. Quite frankly, if there wasn't so much negativity on this site I would share a lot more information.

To me this is a prime example of why employees and past employees tend not to waste their time giving railfans additional information and first hand knowledge into the industry. Every time we correct someone, we are seen as arrogant or trying to belittle them. Honestly, that's not what I try to do when I reply. If that is what it seems, then I will try to change my tone or how I type - and I apologize for that.

I don't believe I have blown any contacts at all - not sure why you think that is the case.

Not trying to get the last word here, so don't take it the wrong way.

cp8558 wrote:

newpylong wrote: You just contradicted yourself by saying much of the information you have obtained is through assumption, and then claiming to have the most accurate answer on this subject. I can tell you in this case, you are incorrect. Do you think customer's needs changed the minute Pan Am Southern started up and began charging haulage rights? I don't think so. In the end, it may be better (faster) to go via Barber's, but this was done solely to avoid paying haulage and switching fees (the cars are being blocked and broken up in Selkirk now as opposed to Deerfield). To the railroad, the longer the line haul, the more money they make, so they almost rather send the traffic a longer route, regardless of customer needs. This is fact, not assumption.

Any additional fees added to the movement of traffic would be passed along to the customer. The customer would then make the decision to route the traffic a different way. The customer is notified of possible routings for its traffic and chooses the one that suits its needs.

I certainly did not contradict myself nor am I incorrect in my opinion of your statements. Your ranting and constant correcting of the other posters here does little more than speak volumes about your personality.

I am not impressed by your supposed interaction with employees or the like. I would not trade the knowledge gained from over 30 years of interest in the industry for some inside contacts.

You, of course, will no doubt respond in an attempt to have the last word on this topic to which I politely will let you have. Thank you

I think I will have to back up your original statement that we will have to agree to disagree. I think there are probably more dynamics involved than either one of us have mentioned - my view being from PAS, and yours from CSXT. I agree with a lot of what you wrote below, as it does make sense. From personally knowing how they operate, I still support my view on the Pan Am motives. Deal?

roberttosh wrote:

newpylong wrote:

roberttosh wrote:I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

straight from the horses mouth why the traffic is going that way, tough to argue with...

So.... if someone from PAR tells you that they are orchestrating the shift in CSXT interchange from ROTTJ to Barbers, then a long discussion that I had with a high-level CSXT Commercial contact, where I was told that their strategy going forward was to avoid PAS as much as possible and divert traffic to Barbers, is all a bunch of nonsense? As was pointed out earlier, it takes both railroads to construct rates, and while PAR may very well want to shift traffic to Barbers, they need CSXT's cooperation to make that a reality.

A few years back I posted about Ford leaving Ayer for Framingham months before that went public; last year I gave the heads up on Coal trains moving over CSXT to Springfield just before they commenced; and just last week I posted that CSXT would very soon be having a press release about their Mass relocation plans the day before it happened, so I think my track record for knowing what's going on at CSXT speaks for itself. As an aside, I was also the first person on the board to bring up the NS/PAR Patriot Corridor discussions. Quite frankly, if there wasn't so much negativity on this site I would share a lot more information.

To the railroad, the longer the line haul, the more money they make, so they almost rather send the traffic a longer route, regardless of customer needs. This is fact, not assumption.

That's actually a generalization. There are plenty of cases in which railroads actually encourage/accept a shorter haul because the margin opportunity was greater on the short-haul. One may look no farther than... yep, Barbers Station pre-PAS. That interchange was set up in 1990 (+/- one year) by CR and ST to facilitate the diversion of traffic away from Rotterdam Junction. ST entered into a haulage agreement for this operation. CR loved it, they didn't have to double-back to Rotterdam Jct from Selkirk. ST loved it because they could reduce their length of haul while enhancing their profitability.

And about information... unless they've come from the field, most marketing/sales/finance guys won't know an angle cock from a reverser. They don't need to. But they DO know their side of the business. They understand railroad pricing, profit maximization, they can cut the nuts off of another road for business A while at the same time working closely with the same road to get business B, and they're every bit a railroader as a T&E employee. Conversely, unless a T&E employee has spent time scrounging for traffic and pricing, they won't know the difference between Rule 11 and a junction line settlement. I say this with all respect to those in the field, hauling tonnage merely gives visibility to volume. It doesn't provide insight as to WHY business ebbs and flows, cars gets routed here vs there, etc.

newpylong wrote:I think I will have to back up your original statement that we will have to agree to disagree. I think there are probably more dynamics involved than either one of us have mentioned - my view being from PAS, and yours from CSXT. I agree with a lot of what you wrote below, as it does make sense. From personally knowing how they operate, I still support my view on the Pan Am motives. Deal?

Fair enough!

: )

Cowford wrote:

To the railroad, the longer the line haul, the more money they make, so they almost rather send the traffic a longer route, regardless of customer needs. This is fact, not assumption.

That's actually a generalization. There are plenty of cases in which railroads actually encourage/accept a shorter haul because the margin opportunity was greater on the short-haul. One may look no farther than... yep, Barbers Station pre-PAS. That interchange was set up in 1990 (+/- one year) by CR and ST to facilitate the diversion of traffic away from Rotterdam Junction. ST entered into a haulage agreement for this operation. CR loved it, they didn't have to double-back to Rotterdam Jct from Selkirk. ST loved it because they could reduce their length of haul while enhancing their profitability.

And about information... unless they've come from the field, most marketing/sales/finance guys won't know an angle cock from a reverser. They don't need to. But they DO know their side of the business. They understand railroad pricing, profit maximization, they can cut the nuts off of another road for business A while at the same time working closely with the same road to get business B, and they're every bit a railroader as a T&E employee. Conversely, unless a T&E employee has spent time scrounging for traffic and pricing, they won't know the difference between Rule 11 and a junction line settlement. I say this with all respect to those in the field, hauling tonnage merely gives visibility to volume. It doesn't provide insight as to WHY business ebbs and flows, cars gets routed here vs there, etc.

This is a very good point...

Even still, Barbers is not back to the 1990's SENE/SELA days, there is still only one crew that reports to Worcester, any extras are more due to the track speed than anything else.

Something I pointed out in another thread... NPR ran a story today about the Panama Canal expansion and the lack of suitable deep water port facilities in the northeast to handle the expected post Panamax container traffic. So far the only ports that come close to being able to handle these kind of loads are Boston and Halifax. Anybody have any idea of how this might affect New England railroads? Would a Boston container facility help or hurt PAR/PAS? Would PAR, SLR or MMA stand to gain from a post Panamax facility in Halifax?

My knowledge of Nova Scotian and Canadian politics is pretty much limited to being aware that they exist, but my knowledge of Bostonian and Commonwealth of Massachusetts politics is sufficient to make it seem unlikely that there will be -- however desirable it is -- a resurgence of the port of Boston. The resurgence could happen, should happen, and would happen, save for the self-interest-driven deal-making that would occur.
Boy, it felt good to express that negativity!

It's not that I don't share your "negativity" when it comes to the self interest involved in Boston politics, it's just that my negative feelings about NY/NJ politics are even greater! The Bayonne NJ container port is the obvious choice for a post-Panamax entry point for the northeast. But they would have to move, raise or alter the Bayonne Bridge and considering the politics in THAT particular scenario I think even the Big Dig would look like an efficient program!

There is always Searsport But that's a different story for a different forum.

According to Massport's web site, Conley terminal in S. Boston is equipped with "four post-Panamax container gantry cranes and twelve rubber tire gantry cranes".

Of course, there's no direct rail connection, though the idea of extending rail to the terminal is occasionally mentioned. Based on past discussions on this forum regarding track configurations, etc., there are a number of issues to address before rail to Conley is an efficient alternative.

One more cause for wonder on a nice, sunny 08-20-2010 at about 0835 was the D-2 TOM choreographing power moves and doubling in Lowell involving one SEWA and yet another SEWA. The two SEWAs were supposedly 40+ cars each, but the time in transit for one set seemed a bit longer than necessary.