• Canadian Pacific Returns to Maine

  • Discussion of present-day CM&Q operations, as well as discussion of predecessors Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway (MMA) and Bangor & Aroostook Railroad (BAR).
Discussion of present-day CM&Q operations, as well as discussion of predecessors Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway (MMA) and Bangor & Aroostook Railroad (BAR).

Moderator: MEC407

  • 102 posts
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  by roberttosh
 
If CP is handing over that much traffic to Pan Am I’m not quite understanding how that could be a result of CP taking traffic away from PAS/CSX? Once CSX has direct access to Saint John and the MNR customers over its’ upgraded, single line route, I could see a lot of that business naturally transitioning over to CSX as much of that traffic is to and from the states.
  by F74265A
 
Historically I understand that a lot of traffic for the Maine paper mills moved on csx 426/427 via Worcester and Ayer (and then on to the mills in Maine) as the successor to the conrail NESE. Some of that traffic could instead be moving over cp in Maine on their routes to and from the Midwest and connections south.
  by roberttosh
 
CP won't be touching any traffic that's going to and from any of the PAS (soon to be CSX) served mills unless it involves a CP origin or destination, that you can be sure of. I would go one step further and say that any of the open mills, such as Irving, Twin Rivers, Woodland Pulp & Paper will likely be shifting traffic to the new and upgraded CSX single line route, especially on anything heading into the states, which I'm guessing is the case with the majority of their business.
  by F74265A
 
If you are right, then the only other explanation is Irving overhead traffic under the soon to be terminated haulage arrangements bound for csx (possibly even NS) that cp and cn would be losing
  by NHV 669
 
That literally is the explanation. How would they be losing the traffic on a 50 mile run that neither originates nor terminates on their rails?
  by F74265A
 
Then aypo and 426/427 should be monster sized trains with that bridge traffic
  by roberttosh
 
It would be unfortunate if CSX applies its' PSR, monster train model to Pan Am as that would likely mean just one very big daily train each way south of Portland. Even if they increased the business by 50% that would likely still not require a second train.
  by F74265A
 
Ck the csx announcement
I think it said that they are going to apply their system
It would be odd if they did not
The old b&o mainline in Maryland runs near my current house. Psr has hugely cut down on train volumes
  by west point
 
suspect that this acquisition would have a negative effect on CSX's OR. Maybe keep it as a separate company and only transfer profit or loss to CSX ? That procedure if allowed would not effect OR and hopefully add to CSX bottom line.
  by newpylong
 
roberttosh wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 6:54 pm It would be unfortunate if CSX applies its' PSR, monster train model to Pan Am as that would likely mean just one very big daily train each way south of Portland. Even if they increased the business by 50% that would likely still not require a second train.
This is already happening many times per week between Ayer and Portland, and same for between Deerfield and Portland.
  by newpylong
 
F74265A wrote: Thu Dec 03, 2020 11:10 am Historically I understand that a lot of traffic for the Maine paper mills moved on csx 426/427 via Worcester and Ayer (and then on to the mills in Maine) as the successor to the conrail NESE. Some of that traffic could instead be moving over cp in Maine on their routes to and from the Midwest and connections south.
The Pan Am NMJ interchange has always been busy regardless of the carrier, I wouldn't read into it as stealing traffic away from the southern outlet(s).

They also haven't returned to Keag yet have they? So they're still moving NBSR-PAR overhead.
  by NHV 669
 
From what I was told, it's still 40-50 cars most days, either because they can offer a better rate, or it's a car terminating within the PAR/S system that is low-priority.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7