• CSX to acquire Pan Am Railways

  • 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.
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

  • 2062 posts
  • 1
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
  • 138
  by MEC407
 
Can we get some ranch dressing for that word salad from the suits at CN? Good grief.
  by Shortline614
 
Seems like a question they really didn't want to answer.
  by newpylong
 
To the point, I think it shows our Canadian neighbors do not give two you know what's about the CSX-PAR deal.
  by Ridgefielder
 
I would not be surprised to see CSX required to divest their share of PAS to a third-party. GWI comes to mind-- I doubt they want to wind up completely landlocked by CSX.

Only way I could see CN getting involved is if they channeled the ghost of Charles Melville Hays and bought the NECR.
  by QB 52.32
 
Why would we think CN would divulge to analysts their strategies, response to a competitor's strategy, or, impugn themselves if they might have been outplayed? No doubt, CN took a look at PAR given their strategic need to build volume on the eastern side of their network and what the important access south of Portland into eastern and central MA could play in meeting that strategy. No doubt, they are concerned to some degree what this will mean to that strategy if CSX solely ends up with PAR. I'd expect they at least want and will get gateway protection for some period of time.

It's too soon to write off the possibility that some or all of CSX's play is for PAS and moving traffic off the B&A. There's too much political power and possibility behind the E-W project, too much money to be spent, made or protected, and, too much deal-making history between CSX and the Commonwealth. It's an interesting MA DOT call out of the $1.5 billion in marginal capital cost to meet CSX's requirements which could be coupled to any planned PAS investment, possibly providing an opening. We'll only know that a possible PAS/B&A infrastructure deal is probably off the table when CSX sheds an ownership stake.

It's too soon to know whether this play is for all of PAR or just south of Portland or Waterville. CSX's existing franchise includes segments that are highly valuable and could be presenting more risk and requirements as they undergo change and those to be defended against possible Canadian incursion , balancing the case with the incremental value direct ownership in Maine provides, unless there is a big play to be had, but that seems murky at this point.

It's too soon to take anything completely off the table. Railroading is a long game with smart people making long-term plans. We'll just have to wait and see.
  by johnpbarlow
 
FWIW, NS was not asked nor did it volunteer any thoughts re: CSX's proposed Pan Am acquisition at its Q4 2020 earnings conference call. As an aside NS execs did say their intention is to continue to lengthen its train consists before it adds trains/crew starts. Also NS claimed 95% of its IM lanes are double stack capable. Meanwhile, as I type, an apparently lengthy outbound 22K has spent the last 3 hours pumping air at Binghamton in 18 degree temperature without attaining the departure threshold and now there's talk about leaving some of the train at Binghamton - wonder why NS doesn't employ mid-train DPUs for IM consists but I digress...

Same was true of CP at its Q4 earnings con call although CP execs did gush about CMQ and international IM traffic coming on-line soon at Saint John.

Just seems odd that, of the 4 earnings calls, Pan Am acquisition got a question only during the CN session as opposed to CSX or NS.
  by Gilbert B Norman
 
QB 52.32 wrote: Thu Jan 28, 2021 6:53 am It's too soon to take anything completely off the table. Railroading is a long game with smart people making long-term plans. We'll just have to wait and see.
Mr. QB, we both know "they ain't dumb" at either 1200 N Peachtree or 500 Water, I've known "a few of 'em along the way" from both during my eleven year railroad career ('70-81).

I think we also know that the "Commonwealth of Tax-----" seems to have pols that know how "pull the strings" in favor of passenger rail projects. There also seems to be a cadre of voters to "egg 'em on". Even as far back as July 8, 1958 when George said "I can't afford the Old Colony anymore, so I'm shutting it down" some pol out there with a "name ending in K" pulled the strings and the OC ran on - at least for another year. I'm sure another "pol with a K" ensured that the Amtrak electrification project moved ahead, and lastly it was inexplicable as to why "suddenly" through BOS-CHI Coaches and Sleeper were returned to the Amtrak Lake Shore. It sure wasn't for operational efficiency.

So all told, Chessie might sense that the B&A could be "taken" from her for some E-W passenger train fantasy. Just compensation under the Fifth Amendment? Who knows.

Should that come to pass, in addition to the value of her property, would the "taking" also cover the cost to rebuild the PAS to an FRA Class 4 property?

It seems like all this could be a waste simply to have some passenger trains that could easily be a "rerun" of the Commonwealth's venture into those over the New Haven Pittsfield-Canaan. It would also upset the established Surf Board doctrine of balanced competitive rail.

Finally, regarding Mr. Barlow's "95% report", one must wonder how much of the 5% deficiency to handle "double stacks" represents the PAS.
  by newpylong
 
I do not think it is too soon to draw a line in the sand that the B&A will not be cannibalized as part of this acquisition. All one has to do is look at A) a map, B) where their existing footprints exist in the Commonwealth and lastly C) the substance of the limited comments they have made to date.
  by roberttosh
 
I find it very hard to believe that instead of running a simple straight shot from Selkirk to West Springfield, CSX is going to want to send a 150 car train the wrong direction out to Rotterdam Jct, back it into the interchange yard, have a second PAS crew move it to Greenfield then on down to Springfield, then have to back that sized train into the yard. If everything ended up going this way, the Northeast quadrant connector track at Springfield (which in essence would become part of the "new" mainline) with all the back up movements required around that very sharp curve would become a complete log jam. I could also see it causing congestion issues on the Water Level route at Rotterdam Jct where you'd have trains backing in and out up to 8-10 time per day while trying to work around both rerouted auto and intermodal trains going over that same interchange.
Last edited by roberttosh on Thu Jan 28, 2021 5:58 pm, edited 3 times in total.
  by lordsigma12345
 
I said it before but the amount of passenger service being discussed is not going to require giving CSX the boot from the B&A - especially if they go with the options where they’d build a seperate track for the passenger trains. MassDOT does not want to boot or destroy their freight business - as someone who paid attention to the passenger study this was stressed. And even if they go with a shared corridor - they will go fully double tracked with sidings.
  by Ridgefielder
 
The B&A from Boston to Springfield was quad track back in the day, wasn't it?
Last edited by MEC407 on Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:30 pm, edited 1 time in total. Reason: unnecessary quoting
  by roberttosh
 
With the Auto operation at East Brookfield more or less taking up part of the former mainline and making it in essence a single track railroad from CP 60 to CP 64, I wonder if they would try to re-install the third track at that location so they could make it true double track again and get around that 4 mile bottleneck?
  by BandA
 
Looking at google maps, I don't see any interference between the double-track main line and the "West Spencer" auto facility. Looks like the lead is only accessible from Track 1 and only from the west. [OT] A great location for a passenger station would be by the auto facility but on the other side of the track, assuming it isn't wetlands!
  by roberttosh
 
They park and use the former main track to switch and build trains so I don't believe they could really use that as an active double track stretch.
  • 1
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
  • 138