CSX Acquisition of Pan Am Railways

I think the reason why Searsport has been brought up as a topic is that many have suggested before that it would benefit from CSX access. I don't think so for reasons previously said and comments from more knowledgeable people here seem to confirm that.

CN9634 wrote: Lastly, I heard a rumor that I don't want to let any cats out of bags for... but if it's true we'll know this month and it would be a major change in the transaction as we know it. Would be a refiling done of the application and could mitigate any 'competitive concerns'.

CSX needs to change the transaction. The "activist" STB, which has become harsh on competition in the past year, will simply not approve the merger as it is. PAS needs to be fully divested from CSX and loss of competition along the Conn River Line will need to be fixed. (I don't think it matters that no customers have raised issues.) G&W taking over PAS seems to stem from the short stretch of trackage rights over P&W that NS needs to get to Ayer over the B&A, so they need to be kept as a part of the transaction if NS still wants them. The most logical solution is to give CSX's 50% of PAS to G&W and have VRS take over PAS's half of the Conn River Line.

G&W could also be tossed out as an operator altogether, but I don't see that as likely. CSAO and NYS&W were tossed around as operators so if it's anyone, it would be one of those two. Of course, there is always the option we get an operator that nobody expected. People sure as heck didn't expect CSX!

GTIKING wrote:Mellon ALWAYS wins, don't forget that.

The house always wins, Mr. GTIKING.

You're asking the wrong guy that question about the why ... last we knew Canpotex was trying the legal route almost 4 years ago now-- https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/commit ... rief_e.pdf

Don't sell yourself short, you answered the question with that link and a little research. As there is no interchange between CN and CP in Saint John, the nearest interchange between the two railways is in Montreal. The distance to Montreal kicks in long-haul interswitching (LHI) rules. Alas, interchanges between Quebec City and Windsor are excluded from use under LHI rules. Given NBSR has an active interchange with CN, it seems they could access, but they apparently show no interest. Or who knows, maybe there are other interswitch restrictions.... I am way rusty on that.

GTIKING wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 2:33 pm The PAR sale has been green lit for a long time, no issues with that end. We'll most likely see Systems go then the PAS issue handled in it's own case. I really hope CSX bankrupts PAS as planned to move forward.

If my resources were sketchy I wouldn't be so bold in saying what I have been over the last following weeks, in attempt to shed some light on the behind the scenes for you guys. You gotta be one of the ' good fellahs' if you know what I mean, to get close enough. Anyhow I called CSX being the wild card for ownership in August 2019, what happened? Bam CSXT time.

All would be very suprised with CSXTs 5 year plan for the ex PAR. Some great long over due stuff coming our way!

I think many of you would benefit from trip to Central Florida right now. CSX is making huge strides with ports down there. Lots of happy customers and lots of bulk transload facilities going in around Tampa. Big Bend, FL is getting a couple miles of yard for grain trains as one example. Many miles of double track going in on the S line above Plant City with interlockings every 2 to 3 miles. It's big time railroading.

So never say never for port potential in New England. The Almighty dollar triumphs good or bad.

"Systems" aren't going anywhere until the PAS issue is resolved. The transaction and sale are one and the same, joined at the hip. There may need to be an about face on the PAS issue before the entire thing can be approved.

Shortline614 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 5:50 pm I think the reason why Searsport has been brought up as a topic is that many have suggested before that it would benefit from CSX access. I don't think so for reasons previously said and comments from more knowledgeable people here seem to confirm that.

CN9634 wrote: Lastly, I heard a rumor that I don't want to let any cats out of bags for... but if it's true we'll know this month and it would be a major change in the transaction as we know it. Would be a refiling done of the application and could mitigate any 'competitive concerns'.

CSX needs to change the transaction. The "activist" STB, which has become harsh on competition in the past year, will simply not approve the merger as it is. PAS needs to be fully divested from CSX and loss of competition along the Conn River Line will need to be fixed. (I don't think it matters that no customers have raised issues.) G&W taking over PAS seems to stem from the short stretch of trackage rights over P&W that NS needs to get to Ayer over the B&A, so they need to be kept as a part of the transaction if NS still wants them. The most logical solution is to give CSX's 50% of PAS to G&W and have VRS take over PAS's half of the Conn River Line.

G&W could also be tossed out as an operator altogether, but I don't see that as likely. CSAO and NYS&W were tossed around as operators so if it's anyone, it would be one of those two. Of course, there is always the option we get an operator that nobody expected. People sure as heck didn't expect CSX!

GTIKING wrote:Mellon ALWAYS wins, don't forget that.

The house always wins, Mr. GTIKING.

Bingo... I'm still scratching my head why PAS wouldn't become defacto CSAO. The literal continued existence of Conrail is joint NS/CSX trackage where competitive concerns could not be addressed adequately, so why not try apply it here? Wonder if STB could just make that determination either... Not sure the P&W trackage rights was the stick for GWI to get in on the transaction, but who knows really.... That's enough thinking out loud for now

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 3:54 pm So is this to say, Mr. Backroad, that the "Fathers" of Searsport wish to forego industrial activity in favor of another Southwest Harbor so that the Fairfield Navy will make such a Port of Call on their Summer cruises?

The description you have set forth certainly suggests that is where they want to go. A bunch of college kids to tend bar and wait on tables when "The Navy" has their "Shore Dinners" hardly equates to having Good Paying year-round UNION jobs that a maritime port would provide.

There is a lot of resistance against the port down there. It doesn't help that a lot of the transplants from out of state have been locating on that part of the coast due to the tax rates of towns on the mid-coast. It has been 5 or 6 years since the last "big" expansion at Searsport, which I can only imagine what it would be like today considering that there is a large condo complex which has a view of the harbor.

CN9634 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 8:24 pm Bingo... I'm still scratching my head why PAS wouldn't become defacto CSAO. The literal continued existence of Conrail is joint NS/CSX trackage where competitive concerns could not be addressed adequately, so why not try apply it here? Wonder if STB could just make that determination either... Not sure the P&W trackage rights was the stick for GWI to get in on the transaction, but who knows really.... That's enough thinking out loud for now

The main difference between PAS and the CSAO areas is that unlike anywhere in CSAO territory, in addition to owning 50% interest in PAS, CSX also owns 100% of a parallel, competing route that serves the exact same territory. As a result, CSX has no reason (other than wanting to be nice, which isn't usually a winning corporate strategy) to want to send any traffic via PAS that it doesn't absolutely have to. After all, why should they give a competitor (NS) revenue that they can just as easily keep for themselves?

If CSX didn't already own the B&A, it would make sense to manage PAS as a CSAO-type of situation, with joint ownership. Since they do own the B&A, though, it doesn't make sense to manage PAS that way.

jamoldover wrote: ↑Sun Dec 12, 2021 4:18 pm If CSX didn't already own the B&A, it would make sense to manage PAS as a CSAO-type of situation, with joint ownership. Since they do own the B&A, though, it doesn't make sense to manage PAS that way.

Nor do I think the STB would approve such a thing, but CSX might try.

Respectfully disagree with prior two posts. (1) CSX routing around the former PAS will happen regardless of operator (CSAO or GW), so that's a moot point; (2) CSAO was established by concession to STB's approval of Conrail's breakup, so there is precedent.

Sorry that I'm not up on what's happening in Maine, but in regards to all this talk of Searsport, What happened with Bucksport? Would Bucksport become a worthwhile port for CSX? They would own the line down there.

I don't know how much space is there, and the condition of the branch is far worse than Searsport, but the potential advantage of Bucksport is that the community would be a lot more welcoming of new or renewed industry. That welcoming attitude might not last forever, though: the more time goes by with the paper mill gone and the rail line dormant, residents will become accustomed to the peace and tranquility and won't want to give it up... so if CSX has any intentions whatsoever for Bucksport, they'd best get crackin' as soon as they're able...

Bucksport currently has, based on looking at overhead map views, far less rail and port infrastructure than searsport. So $$$ investment would be required in the event csx were to have interest.
There is an active facility for offloading petroleum products at bucksport. However, I understand a pipeline serves that facility.
Not sure what the overhead and draft clearance is up to bucksport

https://www.charts.noaa.gov/OnLineViewer/13309.shtml

Mr. F7, "Ancient Mariner" to the rescue!!

Looks like the Penobscot is navigable to Bucksport, but what would be gained especially if the port is undeveloped.

I don't know if it's a Port of Call for Fairfield Navy cruises, as the closest I was there when a Cadet was Rockland. If it is, forget it; for the same lobby that limits Amtrak trains over the East End (Shore Line) would be in play.

But now that I've learned that Bucksport is on the MEC, Chessie and Beaver could have "I dare you" stares X the River. Maybe instead of Chessie trying to build out Bucksport and diverting some traffic that would otherwise be CP's, they could come together in their mutual interest and build out one or the other.

I don't think it's disputable that maritime companies prefer to have two railroads over just one.

MEC407 wrote: ↑ the condition of the branch

Given photos to an MEC based FB group 6 months ago of missing rails/frogs/etc. headed into the [north of] mill yard, I'd say nobody is doing any kind of rail business down there anytime soon.

They had something like 200 boxcars stored north of the mill yard not long ago, but may have pulled most/all of them out.

The Bucksport mill site is spoken for- at least for the time being- by the proposed Whole Oceans aquaculture
project which has been in a holding pattern for the past year. Whether it moves forward or falls apart remains
to be seen.

https://wholeoceans.com/

https://bangordailynews.com/2021/11/26/ ... oam40zk0w/

NHV 669 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 13, 2021 5:07 pm

MEC407 wrote: ↑ the condition of the branch

Given photos to an MEC based FB group 6 months ago of missing rails/frogs/etc. headed into the [north of] mill yard, I'd say nobody is doing any kind of rail business down there anytime soon.

They had something like 200 boxcars stored north of the mill yard not long ago, but may have pulled most/all of them out.

That does not mean too much as it was all 5 MPH / barely in service/ weekly derailments even when the mill was operating. It would be a rip and replace for anything in the future that may happen to use rail down there. I suspect nothing ever will though.