CSX Acquisition of Pan Am Railways

Regarding dropping pw racks by ns at new bond st, I read the trackage rights deal as prohibiting any interchange between VO to, and including, Ayer. It is overhead traffic only

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 27, 2021 10:35 am Now let me revisit a potential issue I broached earlier; what will the two passenger train agencies - "T" and NNEPRA, both paying to have Class 4, PTC enabled, track think about their track being "chewed up by and interfered with" more freight? Will they be going to the Board and airing any possible concerns? And will the Board, responding to the ostensibly "passenger train friendly" Biden Administration, impose restrictions upon time, frequency, and weight of Chessie's and Topper's trains, much the same as Amtrak does on the Corridor?

Enquiring mind wants to know.

Where will that be happening? (Class 4, PTC enabled track being chewed up)? If anything, the opposite will be happening - the NS train that currently runs on MBTA-used track from Westminster- Ayer will now be on non-MBTA-used track from Albany-Worcester-Ayer, and the track in NH and ME that CSX might be increasing operations over isn't currently PTC-equipped. CSX will be paying for that and putting it in place. What is there for the passenger agencies to complain about?

F74265A wrote: ↑Sat Feb 27, 2021 10:38 am Regarding dropping pw racks by ns at new bond st, I read the trackage rights deal as prohibiting any interchange between VO to, and including, Ayer. It is overhead traffic only

It prohibits any NEW interchange agreement. Barbers is already an EXISTING one.

I don’t read the p&w trackage rights agreement that way. In any event, NS does not have existing interchange rights at barbers to my knowledge

Milford & Bennington RR votes yea!

jamoldover wrote: ↑Sat Feb 27, 2021 10:46 am It prohibits any NEW interchange agreement. Barbers is already an EXISTING one.

Negative, PAS nor NS directly has interchange rights at Barbers with PW or CSXT and this will not change. The racks will need to come over the B&M and down the Gardner branch or up to Ayer then west and south again. The more likely scenario is they come in on 16R or whatever eastbound has the NS PAS traffic and the B&E has a direct Deerfield to Worcester turn no stops at Gardner. The tonnage warrants it today even.

I rooted through what I'm referring to as the 'main' filing (301684.pdf) to find anything I could pertaining to potential increases in traffic... here's what I found; figured I'd share in case anyone else has been wondering the same:

"While CSXT expects rail traffic on the PAR System to grow over time, CSXT does not expect to make any significant changes in traffic routes or traffic volumes in the next few years"

(Page 21/375, 301684.pdf, the 'main' filing)

"The introduction of CSXT’s single-line service into New England through the Proposed Transaction will significantly increase the ability of the PAR System, once it is integrated into the CSXT system, to provide intermodal competition"

(Page 25/375, 301684.pdf, the 'main' filing)

"CSXT also expects that rail traffic will increase organically over time as CSXT integrates the existing CSXT and PAR System networks, implements its operating model, and makes capital improvements, but CSXT does not expect significant traffic increases to occur in the next few years."

(Page 25/375, 301684.pdf, the 'main' filing)

"Over time, applicants expect rail traffic to increase as rail users in New England identify new market opportunities and convert existing truck movements to rail. The degree to which rail traffic will increase cannot be estimated at this time, as it is expected to results from more organic growth.”

(Page 43/375, 301684.pdf, the 'main' filing)

"The proposed transaction will not result in an increase in rail traffic of 50 percent (measured in gross ton miles annually) or at least three trains per day on CSXT or on any segment of rail line affected by the Proposed Transaction."

(Page 45/375, 301684.pdf, the 'main' filing). It's mentioned before this on the same page that there won't be a 100% increase in traffic, or at least eight trains trains per day. (Page 45/375, 301684.pdf, the 'main' filing)

In all, I'm optimistic that many new traffic/volume opportunities will present themselves as new customers come online, a number of old customers (hopefully) express a renewed interest in rail service, and a number of existing customers (hopefully) increase existing business... but whether that "organic" growth - and to what extent - will happen within several months or several years of an approved transaction is difficult for anyone (including CSXT) to accurately predict. That said, it's certainly promising to see 58 letters of support from customers at the end of the filing...

I have been told that the NEGS aka VTR now is a near lock on operating the Northern (unsure what that type of lease would look like or when). They plan to move into Nashua yard as the main point of operations. This bodes well for the Milford and Bennington and the future stone business.

Also, there is a side deal for the B&E to acquire some if not all of the PTC equipped PAR power.

chrisf wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:15 am As a casual follower of this thread/topic, I find that the nicknames for everything make it extremely difficult to follow what's being written. Given that "CSX" is 3 letters and "NS" is 2, calling them something else serves no purpose of any value.
Just my 2 cents.

I agree. Although cute(?) it makes it very difficult to decode and follow...

newpylong wrote: ↑Sat Feb 27, 2021 11:56 am I have been told that the NEGS aka VTR now is a near lock on operating the Northern (unsure what that type of lease would look like or when). They plan to move into Nashua yard as the main point of operations.

A deal with vtr on nashua and concord might smooth over any issues they have with the overall carving up of the pan am pie

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 27, 2021 10:35 am All right, Topper cedes whatever local business there is along the PAS to this new G&W Short Line. Again, I foresee "a Class III road with Class 1 track"; who knows what they'll do when Hoosac next caves in; just run Locals from either Deerfield or M'ville?

Now, Topper can only run "one a day" over the B&A, and Chessie surely envisions capturing more high value business from the MEC. Now let me revisit a potential issue I broached earlier; what will the two passenger train agencies - "T" and NNEPRA, both paying to have Class 4, PTC enabled, track think about their track being "chewed up by and interfered with" more freight? Will they be going to the Board and airing any possible concerns? And will the Board, responding to the ostensibly "passenger train friendly" Biden Administration, impose restrictions upon time, frequency, and weight of Chessie's and Topper's trains, much the same as Amtrak does on the Corridor?

Enquiring mind wants to know.

Instead of having underpowered freight moving over their lines at less than track speed, AND having to pay to equip those locomotives with PTC they are going to have proper HPT (Horsepower to Tons) equipped freight moving over their track faster and that are already PTC equipped and getting assistance from CSXT on future PTC installation. I wouldn't be surprised to see a lift of the 40 MPH MAS for freight, which is a Pan Am artificially induced limitation. There also will not be more jobs running vs now since the advent of PSR.

Also, the PAS dynamic is not changing at all so not sure how NS is ceding local traffic. They aren't operating PAS now as it is, ST is. B&E is simply replacing ST as the operator, NS is still getting their 50% cut.

There may be some filings to clarify things but in the end there isn't much to complain about here, as the passenger agencies have at times had VERY contentious relationships with the GTI/PAR.

I wonder what will happen with Billerica. Will B&E setup shop up there to run district 3?

Interesting to note that CSX for apparently the first 3 years is only allowed to run 2 pairs of trains per day through the Ayer terminal. With their penchant for running 150 car trains, I'm thinking 2 pairs should easily be able to handle any near term/future manifest increases but that seems like it could throw a monkey wrench into any near term plans for Intermodal, and unit trains of CBR, Ethanol, grain and coal.

First time poster here, been following the thread for a long time.
Does anyone think that CSX will rehab Lawrence Yard for the potential of an increase of traffic in the future?

newpylong wrote: ↑Sat Feb 27, 2021 11:56 am I have been told that the NEGS aka VTR now is a near lock on operating the Northern (unsure what that type of lease would look like or when). They plan to move into Nashua yard as the main point of operations.

Would interchange take place in Nashua, or could we see that move to Lowell?