CN9634 wrote:The MMA has been moving more oil than Pan Am from the start. They have also been running it longer (time wise). They run about 3 unit jobs a week and many others mixed in general freight.Really? Interesting! Thanks.
gokeefe
Railroad Forums
Moderator: MEC407
CN9634 wrote:The MMA has been moving more oil than Pan Am from the start. They have also been running it longer (time wise). They run about 3 unit jobs a week and many others mixed in general freight.Really? Interesting! Thanks.
fogg1703 wrote:According to a report from RailsNB yahoo group, both CN and MMA have been running oil trains at a rate of 3-1 vs PAR in the last couple of weeks.Hard to believe MMA beating PAR at anything. At that rate their tonnage might actually begin to come close to PARs total tonnage rates from Waterville north.
CN9634 wrote:More traffic will be coming to PAR.Interesting!
fromway wrote:Article in Bangor News about PAN Am not sending in 3 cents per barrel fee for oil transported through Maine since April. Maybe MMA isn't the only line with problems.Not likely. Recent sightings from all over the PAR system indicate very steady if not "heavy" volumes of freight.
Kennebec Journal wrote:Maine’s financial capacity to respond to an oil spill has been cut by 60 percent since 2005 because of a sharp decrease in tariffs collected from companies shipping crude oil and legislators’ decisions to raid a designated cleanup fund.Read more at: http://www.kjonline.com/news/Maines-cap ... uebec.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Meanwhile, as crude oil shipments across Maine skyrocket, oversight of the state’s 1,154 miles of railroads is largely left to one federal inspector and the private companies that own the lines.
Most of the track on those lines barely had the capacity to support a modern tank car filled with oil, according to a 2006 Maine Department of Transportation study.
. . .
According to the study, 92 percent of Maine’s active track would not support a 286,000 pound rail car, which the report said, “is quickly becoming the rail industry standard.”
Gilbert B Norman wrote:Independent of any discussion of the Megantic incident, which has its own topic at this Forum, what is the normal routing of oil trains from the Bakken fields to St John, NB?All BNSF originated traffic ultimately runs over PAR. I believe CSX is an intermediate in addition to NS.
Likely the routings are different for trains originating on the BNSF than they are for those originating of the SOO.
gokeefe wrote:Bakken Oil (North Dakota sourced, light sweet)Gilbert B Norman wrote:Independent of any discussion of the Megantic incident, which has its own topic at this Forum, what is the normal routing of oil trains from the Bakken fields to St John, NB?All BNSF originated traffic ultimately runs over PAR. I believe CSX is an intermediate in addition to NS.
Likely the routings are different for trains originating on the BNSF than they are for those originating of the SOO.