Railroad Forums 

  • "Up North" Gawking (District 1 sightings)

  • 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

 #1510697  by gokeefe
 
Right ... Simply that relations between the carrier and the terminal switcher might not go as smoothly as one would hope. My take is that the corporate links Watco->NS->PAS->PAR would bode well for this.

Makes me wonder if there's a max train length for the Rumford Branch ... Even informally if not in the bulletins.
 #1510710  by 690
 
How exactly do you propose they’ll be running sixty car trains out of Rumford?

As for a train limit, it’s supposed to be 70 cars on the branch, but that gets waved whenever there’s a train that’s over 70 cars.
 #1510742  by KSmitty
 
gokeefe wrote: Thu Jun 06, 2019 12:44 pm Right ... Simply that relations between the carrier and the terminal switcher might not go as smoothly as one would hope. My take is that the corporate links Watco->NS->PAS->PAR would bode well for this.
You're still missing the point...It's got nothing to do with how much switching goes on at Rumford or how well WATCO and ST can play together. ST is capable of adding switch crews, they could provide 24/7 on site switching in Rumford. They are also well practiced in dealing with 3rd party switchers, they do it every day in Skowhegan. It's not a logistic or operations issue.

It's all about how Billerica feels about losing the contract and how they respond. Pan Am's management and ND management already don't get along well. If Billerica feels sleighted by ND for losing the switching contract they may respond by cancelling or setting back crew starts, taxiing crews from the branch to other trains while letting PORU/RUPO sit, general feet dragging... There are plenty of games they can play to slow transit times and screw up supply lines for the mill. It would seem like it would be a foolish decision, but what's a massive mill going to do? Stop rail service all together? It's a largely captive customer, and they can show their displeasure in losing the contract to the customer in all sorts of creative and entertaining ways. Sometimes it's not an accident that service sucks, sometimes its a petty pissing match.
 #1510770  by CN9634
 
You'd think based on this discussion that all hell is breaking loose in Pan Am land. Good opportunity to move crews further west where they are needed and my understanding is no real love-loss at Pan Am as long as they still get the linehaul, which obviously they will. Also a strong sign from ND Paper they aren't going to play ball like everyone has previously, so credit to them making a statement.
 #1510795  by newpylong
 
Deep breaths.

I would think they would not have sold the yard to the mill if they felt overly strongly about switching it forever, or they wanted it maintained on someone else's dime.
Last edited by newpylong on Fri Jun 07, 2019 5:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 #1510822  by 690
 
Rumford (and Rileys) are two of the customers that are actually switched as the mills want, not based on what the railroad deems fit. Unless there's an emergency somewhere on the branch, the mill switchers don't get cabbed elsewhere. And the crews based up there are damn good crews too, making sure all the work gets done quickly and efficiently.

In my personal opinion, this isn't a result of lack of service (we've been servicing them very well, especially as far as Pan Am goes), but more a middle finger to the railroads management, and their unwillingness to work with the mills.
 #1510879  by gokeefe
 
690 wrote:In my personal opinion, this isn't a result of lack of service (we've been servicing them very well, especially as far as Pan Am goes), but more a middle finger to the railroads management, and their unwillingness to work with the mills.
Interesting outcome and analysis. I will say that every indication I've seen is that the railroad is taking the needs of large customers very seriously.

I would also note that the new ownership has a historical preference for direct control over their shipping terminals.
 #1510978  by CN9634
 
New signals, control sidings for New Gloucester, Fairgrounds and Leeds, stick rail replacement especially in Auburn/Greene up through to Readfield/Belgrade. If you are fancy to MEC searchlight signals I’d start racking up the pics now
 #1511101  by PBMcGinnis
 
Of course WATCO would be a better option for the local switching and it makes sense Pan Am would not put in a bid for it.
1) WATCO crews will get paid significantly cheaper (non-union potentially) wages
2) Pan Am still has the line haul from the mill to the outbound interchanges, so no traffic is lost.
3) Not a lot of people banging on the door these days to become train crews - so WATCO may still find staffing a challenge
  • 1
  • 126
  • 127
  • 128
  • 129
  • 130
  • 171