CSX Acquisition of Pan Am Railways

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 7:04 am Over at the CPKC Saint John Intermodal topic, Mr. Kuband (who surely has participated somewhere here at this "epic") notes that the Maine Central has clearance issues which have kept Chessie from making Intermodal (and other multi-level equipment) rates from and to Saint John, NB.

Might anyone here know the nature and scope of these clearance issues and how they might be (or are being) addressed?

My apologies if this has already been answered. If so and I come across it, I'll remove this.

To be pedantic (because this is RR.Net, after all): The only clearance issue I am aware of on the former MEC is the Cassidy Point bridge in Portland, which MaineDOT wants to remove. On the former B&M, south/west of Rigby, I have heard of a small road in the Kennebunk area which has a low crossing; the issue there is that that crossing is currently the only access to several residences. I am not sure how much work would be needed to raise that to 25' or whatever clearance is needed,

HOWEVER, the larger issue clearance-wise, so far as I am aware (caveat that I get all my information regarding this from this very message board), is one or more Interstate-495 ramps in the area between Ayer and Haverhill, which do not leave the standard 25' clearance. Obviously, fixing that would be a much larger deal than removing or raising a low-traffic bridge.

They identified a few hundred obstructions, but that can be anything from a bridge to a telephone cable. Obviously the truss bridges east of Old Town are too low. The bridge for the Bucksport Branch is low, Guilford did a clearance project to allow plate F cars to pass on the main line, however track 2 is only good for Plate C cars if I remember correctly. When the mill was still going a few times some plate F cars got turned into plate C cars while going under it...

There is also another bridge in downtown which is too low. Pan Am prior to the sale was going rehab the oos side of the Kenduskeag Stream bridge, which would allow them to cut the grade down enough to meet double stack clearance requirements, without impairing traffic.

At NMJ, I am guessing the former BAR line over the MEC yard is too low as well, since the bridge often scrapes snow off the roofs of plate F cars in the winter. They can't really go down because NMJ is built on a swamp and there are existing drainage issues. And they can't really go up without having to reconfigure part of CP's yard. I am not sure the legal status of who has the right of way at NMJ, but I can't see CP willingly going out of the way to help a competitor without being forced to do so.

CN9634 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2024 2:16 pm Maine has a decent trucking/intermodal market. As a few comparisons, New Brunswick has two domestic intermodal ramps (CN and CPKC) servicing ~1.6M people in a rural footprint. That's slightly more than ME at ~1.4M, and with NH combined you have almost ~3M and growing in the local market. Recently, CPKC and NBSR have been surprised at the strength of the domestic intermodal, setting a weekly record this past year of 312 loads in one week.

By Population:
Nova Scotia 971K
New Brunswick 776K

Maine 1.395M
NH 1.385M

Saint John (NBSR) is primarily used by Sunbury and Midland for Irving's own purposes. Midland about a year ago purchased a fleet of domestic containers and those made up a majority of the domestic service. Those seem to have been replaced by those CP and CPKC containers in that ugly pink scheme. Those seem to go to the two Irving Paper mills in town as well as to Lake Utopia. Moncton seems to be more of a feeder for NS and I am going out on a limb to say where CN has its own trucking company, they use that ramp to ease congestion at Halifax. When I used to go to PEI, you saw a lot of the CN containers up there as well.
As for the NBSR traffic, I know they get some refrigerated containers, but the only other domestic contract I can think of is for Canadian Tire and I am not sure the frequency of that business.

The Canadian Tire loads must be going via CN; I used to see some here and there over the Moosehead. Nothing in a while, unless they're going in unmarked containers...

Drove by Accra yard in Richmond VA today and saw a blue Pan Am boxcar

Yep, they're everywhere now that many are on lease to other roads.

Mr. NHV is "correct of sorts".

Pan Am's reporting marks - namely B&M and MEC, along with the cars themselves, became property of CSX Transportation as part of the acquisition. Those cars will be interchanged freely amongst all roads at the applicable "per diem" rate as promulgated by the AAR.

In short, the "Blue Meatball" will be riding the rails for quite some time to come. You could easily observe a newly acquired car liveried CSX but with one of PAR's reporting marks. I observe "all the time" newly acquired UP cars - and even some that have not yet received their "supplemental artwork" with predecessor reporting marks - including CMO; a subsidiary road Chicago Minneapolis, and Omaha, of the C&NW.

Cars with BN reporting mark are quite common running by my house (during Winter from my front yard, I can clearly see Uncle Warren's 1:1 Lionel).

Finally, the mark PAS went with that road to the Short Line Berkshire and Eastern. Of interest, the mark PAR belongs to the Pacific Railway Society.

That's correct. All of the "System" subsidiaries (which actually own the real estate and other tangible objects) such as MEC, BM, ST, and PT were transferred to CSX Transportation and the Pan Am Systems and Railway entities are gone the way of the dinosaur. The predecessor reporting marks will be used indefinitely most likely.

PAS is only a holding company (that owns assets) so not being a common carrier nothing can be reported with those marks.

Similarly PAR was only a DBA so also not being a common carrier that reporting mark was not used. The exception was the Executive Office train locos PAR1 and PAR2 which like CSX 1, CSX 2 etc can be labeled as such by special exception. I never got inside those locos to see if the placard actually said PAR or MEC.

newpylong wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 7:40 am Similarly PAR was only a DBA so also not being a common carrier that reporting mark was not used. The exception was the Executive Office train locos PAR1 and PAR2 which like CSX 1, CSX 2 etc can be labeled as such by special exception. I never got inside those locos to see if the placard actually said PAR or MEC.

I believe I recall someone who was an employee at the time posting on this board that the blue card read MEC.

I was actually referring to cars no longer owned by PAR/CSXT with one of those shortline marks that seem to float around everywhere. The cars in question still have visible meatball logos.

Speaking of Pan Am-- the airline makes a return?

https://www.criteriontravel.com/panam/

50 people on a 757.... They would have had room to stretch their legs. So it really would have been a journey back in time. At $60-65K each, it was one option for spending the kids inheritance.

So is that who Timmy sold the Pan Am Airways brand to? IIRC he owned the entire trademark at one point.

Very interesting. Unfortunately every time this upscale experience is attempted with trains, it fails. Wish them luck.

Mr. Moldover, somewhere within this "epic", we established that Timmy sold the Pan Am brand separately to this "bling" retailer.

This "luxo" tour operator first noted by Mr. CN, complete with a 752 aircraft configured to handle fifty passengers that is marketing their journey using the Pan Am brand must have entered into an agreement with that retailer.