Pan Am Railways (PAR) Maintenance of Way (MoW) Activity

BandA wrote:175Miles / 6:50 = 26MPH. Is that a high speed?

Yes, that's pretty fast for the curves all across the corridor and some of the grades. Remember...it wasn't a demonstrator for theoretical non-stop trip times and sustained speed of the equipment done in a business vacuum, but rather a track MAS record on a wholly conventional cross-corridor freight job. The crews would've done all the normal chores of a conventional cross-corridor freight job, including pauses and slowdowns within yard limits to receive orders and hitting all the usual restricting signals en route for other on-line traffic. One big thing to also remember is that in 1940 the Hoosac Tunnel was still electrified and required a layover outside each portal to attach/detach the electric boxcabs that hauled the train through the tunnel and power up/power down the steam or diesel locos. They didn't reconstruct the vent shafts to allow for uninterrupted diesel operation until '46, so every freight including this diesel demonstrator would've had a built-in timetable pause for crossing the tunnel.

newpylong wrote:They are dropping it all East of 312 - it's PAR rail not PAS. No involvement from NS on the payment aspect, unsure of where it came from but it is 115lb and reportedly stamped "Lucchini" as in the Italian steel company. That will fit right in with the Russian rail they put in the tunnel about 10 years back.

Looks like PAR dropped all of the rail from somewhere between Meadowbrook Road and School street in Chelmsford to the Willows East. All of the crossings on this portion will also be replaced as there are cut off sections of welded rail at each crossing. Still remains a section of the line up to CPF-NC to be done so will another train be coming? How about the Lowell Branch? PAR must figure that all of the track on the line is no good as even tangent sections are due to be replaced. Big question though is when will all of this work be completed?

A handful of short line / regional RRs (incl PAS/PAR) met with Connecticut US Rep. Elizabeth Esty, who serves on the House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure, "...to push for establishing a permanent tax credit that helps companies pay for rail and bridge replacement." Congress let the Short Line tax credit (aka The Railroad Track Maintenance Tax Credit or 45G Tax Credit),expire at the end of 2016, apparently. For those not familiar with the 45G Tax Credit (like me!), here's what Wikipedia has to say:

the 45G Tax Credit, is a federal income tax credit for track maintenance conducted by short lines and regional railroads in the United States. The credit granted an amount equal to 50% of qualified track maintenance expenditures and other qualifying railroad infrastructure projects.

http://www.nhregister.com/connecticut/a ... 159884.php

It's interesting (and perhaps even ironic) that a representative of Pan Am Railways, Cynthia Scarano, participated in this appeal by Connecticut short line & regional RRs, given PAR's historic lack of performing infrastructure maintenance on its own nickel.

johnpbarlow wrote:A handful of short line / regional RRs (incl PAS/PAR) met with Connecticut US Rep. Elizabeth Esty, who serves on the House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure, "...to push for establishing a permanent tax credit that helps companies pay for rail and bridge replacement." Congress let the Short Line tax credit (aka The Railroad Track Maintenance Tax Credit or 45G Tax Credit),expire at the end of 2016, apparently. For those not familiar with the 45G Tax Credit (like me!), here's what Wikipedia has to say:

the 45G Tax Credit, is a federal income tax credit for track maintenance conducted by short lines and regional railroads in the United States. The credit granted an amount equal to 50% of qualified track maintenance expenditures and other qualifying railroad infrastructure projects.

http://www.nhregister.com/connecticut/a ... 159884.php

It's interesting (and perhaps even ironic) that a representative of Pan Am Railways, Cynthia Scarano, participated in this appeal by Connecticut short line & regional RRs, given PAR's historic lack of performing infrastructure maintenance on its own nickel.

Not to mention their CT presence is all-PAS, so they're 50% Class I -owned/operated/funded to boot.

Whatever. Housatonic also submitted a real bid package for the Hartford Line operator contract a few months ago (shockingly, they were eliminated from consideration in the first-round!), so it's not like CDOT & pols aren't well used to tuning out the elephant in the room who's begging for free money for no-effort.

johnpbarlow wrote:It's interesting (and perhaps even ironic) that a representative of Pan Am Railways, Cynthia Scarano, participated in this appeal by Connecticut short line & regional RRs, given PAR's historic lack of performing infrastructure maintenance on its own nickel.

Lately that has not been the case at all.

gokeefe wrote:

johnpbarlow wrote:It's interesting (and perhaps even ironic) that a representative of Pan Am Railways, Cynthia Scarano, participated in this appeal by Connecticut short line & regional RRs, given PAR's historic lack of performing infrastructure maintenance on its own nickel.

Lately that has not been the case at all.

Are we all persuaded that PAR mgmt have had an epiphany in the past 12 or so months that it should invest its own $ in infrastructure maintenance after decades of refusing to do maintenance unless somebody else paid for it? Do we know that PAR is really self-funding this current frenzy of rail and tie work? Given how little work PAR has appeared to fund prior to 2016, I'm curious if they actually were able to take advantage of this short line RR tax credit.

This is the same outfit that returned--this year--an awarded grant for MAINLINE track class upgrades from lack of interest in performing the work somebody else was paying for. Yes, I'd say that's very current and relevant grist for gauging current attitudes in the Billericadome.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:This is the same outfit that returned--this year--an awarded grant for MAINLINE track class upgrades from lack of interest in performing the work somebody else was paying for. Yes, I'd say that's very current and relevant grist for gauging current attitudes in the Billericadome.

Well, I mean, they did lay out roughly $3,940,000 in locomotive purchases early this year (first 20 C40's). That number is about 60K shy of their required contribution of matching funds for the TIGER project ($4M). While the WTVL-NMJ section is "main line" its more a glorified branchline. The decision to upgrade the completely beat to sh!t mainline power on the money making western half of the system rather than a 1.4 train/day section of money losing line seems like a pretty reasonable decision to me. Yep they gave up $6M in grant money, but those GE's will pay for themselves in fuel savings and mechanical costs. The line upgrade would have only added maintenance costs and saved them very minimally on operational costs.

It seems stupid on the surface, I had the same "why would they do that?" reaction as well. But when you think about it, their other expenditures matched with the fact that operationally they wouldn't gain anything noticeable in the way of savings from upgrading the line it makes sense.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:This is the same outfit that returned--this year--an awarded grant for MAINLINE track class upgrades from lack of interest in performing the work somebody else was paying for. Yes, I'd say that's very current and relevant grist for gauging current attitudes in the Billericadome.

Lack of interest is incorrect. The terms were not conveyed correctly.

gokeefe wrote:Lack of interest is incorrect. The terms were not conveyed correctly

Are you suggesting they did not understand the grant award?

fogg1703 wrote:

gokeefe wrote:Lack of interest is incorrect. The terms were not conveyed correctly

Are you suggesting they did not understand the grant award?

It seems as though the terms from the feds were not clear.

gokeefe wrote:

fogg1703 wrote:

gokeefe wrote:Lack of interest is incorrect. The terms were not conveyed correctly

Are you suggesting they did not understand the grant award?

It seems as though the terms from the feds were not clear.

Hmmmm, seems CMQ and NBM had no problem understanding the terms, not to mention the countless Maine legislators who worked to secure the grants. Although CMQ and NBM were willing to put up their share of the match money so I'm sure that has nothing to do with it . I'll pick cheap over gross incompetence any day.

The grant terms were clear. The capital spend is going towards engines instead. The MEC is hemorrhaging money better ROI on engines to be used on profitable corridors with heavy tonnage.

Lately I've seen tired company hoppers on various D3 trains including local FI-1 that didn't appear to be laden with ballast but perhaps scrap ties? Is PAS/PAR at long last starting to remove the scads of dead ties littering the sides of the RoW?

When I got out of work today in Auburn, Irving crews were busy replacing ties heading east. Looked to be doing about 1 in 5. I was watching them work for a bit. Amazing how bad some of the ties were that they swapped. When the small claw picked them up, some were already in half or others splintered into pieces. Much need work!

They had dropped rock through here early in the summer. I was wondering why they hadn't tamped it yet. Probably will do it once the tie work is finished or moves ahead.