Pan Am v. PTC implementation

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

Dick H
Posts: 3553
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 8:55 pm
Location: Dover, NH

Re: Pan Am v. PTC implementation

Post by Dick H »

Amtrak is Threatening to End Downeaster Service on PAR on 12/31 on PTC Issue.

viewtopic.php?f=46&t=168260" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Trinnau
Posts: 512
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:27 pm

Re: Pan Am v. PTC implementation

Post by Trinnau »

Interesting, because it is PTC-exempt track and was never planned or PTC installation. This is solely and Amtrak decision/stance, nothing to do with the law. NNEPRA could simply find another operator if Amtrak doesn't want it.
Last edited by MEC407 on Tue Aug 28, 2018 12:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: unnecessary quoting

Cowford
Posts: 2825
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Pan Am v. PTC implementation

Post by Cowford »

NNEPRA could simply find another operator...
Replace the service's operator and equipment provider... simply?

newpylong
Posts: 4321
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 12:32 pm
Location: NH

Re: Pan Am v. PTC implementation

Post by newpylong »

They won't really have a choice if Amtrak refuses to operate...

johnpbarlow
Posts: 2175
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 12:50 pm

Re: Pan Am v. PTC implementation

Post by johnpbarlow »

Given these are the routes that Amtrak board proposes terminating (copied from Trains Magazine on-line), there should be quite a bit of Amtrak equipment available for lease/sale, including Downeaster cars and locomotives:
The policy means the Amtrak Board would insist the following trains on FRA-exempted routes be discontinued:

Southwest Chief: between La Junta, Colo., and Dailies, N.M., and through Topeka, Kan.
Cardinal: over the Buckingham Branch Railroad between Orange and Clifton Forge, Va.
California Zephyr: 152 miles of UP’s Green River subdivision west of Grand Junction, Colo.
Texas Eagle: 110 miles of UP’s Desoto subdivision south of St. Louis, Mo.
Downeaster: north of Haverhill, Mass., to Brunswick, Maine., on Pan Am Railways
Vermonter: north of Springfield, Mass., on the New England Central
Ethan Allen: on Vermont Railway east of Whitehall, N.Y.
City of New Orleans: a total of 18 miles on Canadian National around Memphis, Tenn., and New Orleans
Hard to believe Amtrak would seriously consider operating 6 daily DE train pairs only between North Station and Haverhill - perhaps Pan Am might be interested in partnering on DE ops?

PBMcGinnis
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 8:49 am

Re: Pan Am v. PTC implementation

Post by PBMcGinnis »

Amtrak threatening to walk away from the Downeaster is just a tactic by the new people running the show there to get more money for the service.
One side will tell you that they need better compensation for the cost of providing the Downeaster Service. The other side will tell you a rate increase isn't justified.
The answer or the truth lies in the fact that nobody else has stepped forward to offer to do it at the same price or cheaper. So Amtrak is getting its point across.

As for the equipment....very easy to transfer ownership of the cars and locomotives to a new provider in a sale, or if NEPPRA owns the equipment and just designates an operator.

Bottom line - the service won't be discontinued. But the 3 states are going to cough up more tax dollars.

Dick H
Posts: 3553
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 8:55 pm
Location: Dover, NH

Re: Pan Am v. PTC implementation

Post by Dick H »

NNEPRA has issued a statement that the Downeaster Service is not in jeopardy going into 2019
https://bangordailynews.com/2018/08/28/ ... rity-says/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BM6569
Posts: 1381
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 12:19 pm
Location: Hebron, Maine

Re: Pan Am v. PTC implementation

Post by BM6569 »

"Quinn said that because positive train control technology is not required on the Downeaster line, New England rail authority is “not considering” installing the technology at this time."

What happens when they try to add another round trip?

User avatar
MEC407
Posts: 10974
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:15 pm

Re: Pan Am v. PTC implementation

Post by MEC407 »

PBMcGinnis wrote:But the 3 states are going to cough up more tax dollars.
1 state. NH and MA don't fund the Downeaster.
MEC407
Moderator:
Pan Am Railways — Boston & Maine/Maine Central — Delaware & Hudson
Central Maine & Quebec/Montreal, Maine & Atlantic/Bangor & Aroostook
Providence & Worcester — New England — GE Locomotives

User avatar
BostonUrbEx
Posts: 3838
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 9:55 pm
Location: Winn to MPT 8, Boston to MPN 38, and Hat to Bank

Re: Pan Am v. PTC implementation

Post by BostonUrbEx »

BM6569 wrote:What happens when they try to add another round trip?
There's only five round-trips at this time. There are plans for six round-trips, but it would be a seventh round-trip that'd trigger PTC requirements.

Trinnau
Posts: 512
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:27 pm

Re: Pan Am v. PTC implementation

Post by Trinnau »

MEC407 wrote:
PBMcGinnis wrote:But the 3 states are going to cough up more tax dollars.
1 state. NH and MA don't fund the Downeaster.
MA's contribution is access to their tracks at no cost. So while there is no direct financial contribution, the use of the infrastructure itself is worth something.

Tom M
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 2:16 pm
Location: NH

Re: Pan Am v. PTC implementation

Post by Tom M »

It sounds like NNEPRA is saying, "Nope. We're exempt. Nothing to worry about." At the same time, Amtrak is saying, "No PTC, no Amtrak trains. Period." A convenient way to disrupt things. At worst, Amtrak management taking another step toward shutting down the system, bit by bit, however they can, wherever they can.

User avatar
BostonUrbEx
Posts: 3838
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 9:55 pm
Location: Winn to MPT 8, Boston to MPN 38, and Hat to Bank

Re: Pan Am v. PTC implementation

Post by BostonUrbEx »

Trinnau wrote:MA's contribution is access to their tracks at no cost.
NNEPRA does not pay mileage to the MBTA?

Backshophoss
Posts: 6491
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:58 pm

Re: Pan Am v. PTC implementation

Post by Backshophoss »

MBTA is installing a cab signal less version of ACSES II out of North Station,as part of the deal that sold the Commuter ROWs to the state,
NO cab signals was part of the terms of sale!
The Land of Enchantment is not Flyover country!

User avatar
MEC407
Posts: 10974
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:15 pm

Re: Pan Am v. PTC implementation

Post by MEC407 »

Trinnau wrote:MA's contribution is access to their tracks at no cost.
NNEPRA (read: the State of Maine) helped pay for the rebuild of the Haverhill bridge and has funded other track projects down there. MA isn't just giving it away for free. They do receive compensation.
MEC407
Moderator:
Pan Am Railways — Boston & Maine/Maine Central — Delaware & Hudson
Central Maine & Quebec/Montreal, Maine & Atlantic/Bangor & Aroostook
Providence & Worcester — New England — GE Locomotives

Return to “Pan Am Railways (formerly Guilford Rail System)”