Railroad Forums 

  • PAS potential acquisition scenarios

  • 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

 #1358346  by CPF363
 
newpylong wrote:That would not be low cost because with current track conditions it's not realistic. You could get a train from Bingo to Deerfield in around 11 hours IF there were no stops on any of the 3 railroads, if PAS picked up all the 25 mp west of North Adams back to 40, and CP did not sandbag them crossing over the joint mainline. That's a lot of ifs and would require more cash infusion for track work.
PAS would also have to get the siding at Williamstown-Pawnal installed in addition to moving Ferry Street (CPF=464) east towards Snyders for increased flexibility.
 #1358358  by newpylong
 
The siding plan out there is 2 miles CPF 434 to CPF 432 North Pownal to Pownal. It would be from where the old interlocking used to be in North Pownal to roughly the farmer's crossing near 432. Guess they don't want to deal with the 3 crossings east of there.

Snyders would be great - and I think they need to get West Deerfield back too. Getting rid of both were terrible decisions. An alternative to putting Snyders back in is a siding in Johnsonville - an idea has also been kicked around in the brain trust.
 #1358510  by johnpbarlow
 
CP is turning up the heat on NS with a sweetened deal:

http://www.thestar.com/business/2015/11 ... r-bid.html

It seems a little hyperbolic that the caption to the NS photo says "Canadian Pacific's $28 billion takeover offer could stoke shareholder impatience with Norfolk Southern's industry-worst operating efficiency, one analyst says." when NS' Q3 2015 OR figure was reported as an OK 69.7%. While this figure is a handful of points higher than KCS, CSX and UP, it's not horrible, although year over year it's trending in the wrong direction.
 #1358514  by johnpbarlow
 
Attached is a detailed map of NS D&H South Lines and PAS territory.

Somewhat unrelated question to NS consuming the rest of PAS partnership, but has CSX/PAS thought of moving the EDRJ/RJED traffic to Q424/425 Selkirk-Springfield and then running an EDSP/SPED turn to exploit PAS' newly renovated Conn River line to access E Deerfield Yard? Seems like it would be faster transit time and would save a CSX and a PAR crew v. running to/from RJ.

BTW, if you want to see the entire detailed NS system map, here's the URL: [Caution: this is a very large (73 MB) file! -moderator] http://www.nscorp.com/content/dam/nscor ... em-map.pdf
Attachments:
NS D&H South.JPG
NS D&H South.JPG (313.19 KiB) Viewed 4196 times
 #1358872  by QB 52.32
 
That is an interesting question, John,though I am not so sure 424/425 could absorb the volume on an on-going basis given B&A operations, though perhaps another set like 422/423 could, and with this being a growing and seasonally-affected LPG gateway. Couple that with how the CSX/VRS interchange traffic PAS is handling via North Bennington would have to be dealt with begs the question whether this would save (enough) train starts. Then too,there would be the question of whether the cost and revenue piece would make sense, especially for the PAS CT traffic, unless, perhaps, there was practicality and accomodations made to just handle that traffic direct to/from W. Springfield/Springfield.
 #1358885  by newpylong
 
RJED traffic in colder months is too heavy to tack on to another job. Also, if Deerfields are moved to Springfield CSX would then have to run a local to RJ to bring VTRs,Schenectady chemical and Park traffic from SelkirK
That means more switching and two jobs for what they now run as one. Not a good proposition. It would have already happened if it made sense.
 #1359023  by johnpbarlow
 
Thanks all for the analysis and feedback. I didn't realize that a significant amount of the RJ interchange traffic with CSX was bound for destinations other than E Deerfield.

BTW, per RRer posting on CSX Boston Line yahoo forum, CSX appears to re-instituting a M-F helper job at at Pittsfield to enable CSX to operate fewer, longer trains over the Berkshires (CSX has started moving 200+ car trains over RF&P presumably to reduce OR).

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/CSX ... sages/7466
 #1359026  by NHV 669
 
I don't think "monstah" trains are anything new for them... I recall a near 160 car train east through Fultonville, NY in '05, and they've got near 180 car trains running through Georgia (via YT video). Of course it amazes me that neither instance has required more than 2-3 locomotives.
 #1359056  by newpylong
 
NHV 669 wrote:I don't think "monstah" trains are anything new for them... I recall a near 160 car train east through Fultonville, NY in '05, and they've got near 180 car trains running through Georgia (via YT video). Of course it amazes me that neither instance has required more than 2-3 locomotives.
Flat lines. The B&A has tonnage restrictions due to curvature and ruling grade.
 #1359087  by frrc
 
newpylong wrote:
NHV 669 wrote:I don't think "monstah" trains are anything new for them... I recall a near 160 car train east through Fultonville, NY in '05, and they've got near 180 car trains running through Georgia (via YT video). Of course it amazes me that neither instance has required more than 2-3 locomotives.
Flat lines. The B&A has tonnage restrictions due to curvature and ruling grade.

I recall during the CONRAIL era the limit was 9600 tons at Washington Hill, and remember pushers staged at Chester.


JoeF
 #1359102  by Engineer Spike
 
I don't see how 100% NS control of the PAS will be construed as anti competition, or antitrust. CSX got control of the B&A, as part of the Conrail split. Since MA, and CT have among the highest population density, there are millions of potential customers in Springfield, Worcester, Boston, Hartford, New Haven, and suburbs. Nobody in those places would object to having more transportation options. Right now, CSX is the only class one which is in New England. PAS is roughly comparable, and parallel to the B&A.

East of Ayer is another story. Who knows if Maine and New Hampshire have the traffic density to attract a class 1. Maybe NS and CSX would form a joint operation there, if T.M. ever decides to sell Pan Am, just like Conrail, and NYS&W.
 #1359432  by Ironman
 
frrc wrote:
newpylong wrote:
NHV 669 wrote:I don't think "monstah" trains are anything new for them... I recall a near 160 car train east through Fultonville, NY in '05, and they've got near 180 car trains running through Georgia (via YT video). Of course it amazes me that neither instance has required more than 2-3 locomotives.
Flat lines. The B&A has tonnage restrictions due to curvature and ruling grade.

I recall during the CONRAIL era the limit was 9600 tons at Washington Hill, and remember pushers staged at Chester.


JoeF
This has been increased to 10,700 tons for all trains on the B&A, and there is a pusher crew based in Pittsfield 5 nights a week. You now will regularly see 150+ car trains east of Pittsfield, 190+ cars west after the Housatonic pickup on the B&A.

The Mohawk is regularly running 200 car trains now.
 #1359519  by ebtmikado
 
johnpbarlow wrote:Attached is a detailed map of NS D&H South Lines and PAS territory.

Somewhat unrelated question to NS consuming the rest of PAS partnership, but has CSX/PAS thought of moving the EDRJ/RJED traffic to Q424/425 Selkirk-Springfield and then running an EDSP/SPED turn to exploit PAS' newly renovated Conn River line to access E Deerfield Yard? Seems like it would be faster transit time and would save a CSX and a PAR crew v. running to/from RJ.

BTW, if you want to see the entire detailed NS system map, here's the URL: [Caution: this is a very large (73 MB) file! -moderator] http://www.nscorp.com/content/dam/nscor ... em-map.pdf
This NS map is so out of date. In less than 2 minutes viewing, I see at least 3 sections of old data in Connecticut alone! The most obvious is the P&W Willimantic Branch from Plainfield to Willimantic has been reopened for freight traffic, even through interline trains over NECR for at least 5 years.

How accurate is the rest of the map? Your guess.

Lee