• 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

  • 2401 posts
  • 1
  • 129
  • 130
  • 131
  • 132
  • 133
  • 161
  by NYC27
 
Who is clearing the land and is it related to this transaction? I could easily be wrong, but I have a faint recollection that the old b&m Worcester yard land was sold
Any clearing is unrelated to this transaction. B&M still owns the land (and the old Northbound main from the north portal of the Lincoln Sq. tunnel to Barbers). MBTA has an option or something on it to build a layover yard there, but that project isn't moving forward. It is a nice spot for a bulk transload, I guess CSX would have to serve from Framingham though?
  by NYC27
 
newpylong wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 8:08 pm In reading this application more closely, I wouldn't be surprised to see CSX exit PAS within the first two years. I have never seen so many voluntary concessions to get something approved in a filing before, and the language is certainly there for an exit (initiated by them or NS) within the first 7 years.
Bingo. That they already have an agreed to min price to sell PAS before they have even bought AND NS can force the sale tells you everything. NS was protesting CSX ownership of PAS before they even announced the deal, let alone filed at the STB....of course they are going to exercise that clause. CSX never wanted PAS but Mellon wasn't doing an ala carte sale.
  by johnpbarlow
 
A minor point but I had wondered aloud in an earlier posting if NS 22K/23K could interchange auto traffic directly with P&W at Worcester and apparently the answer is "no" as neither the trackage rights agreements over CSX or P&W will permit any interchange in Worcester. Here's the relevant text from the P&W rights agreement:
TRANSACTIONS IMPOSING INTERCHANGE COMMITMENTS
The trackage rights herein granted over the P&W Trackage are for overhead purposes
only. NS shall not perform any local freight service whatsoever at any point on the P&W
Trackage. Thus, the Agreement does not contain any interchange commitments.
Therefore I'm guessing NS' Davisville auto traffic will continue to be interchanged with P&W at Gardner.
  by MEC407
 
One of the STB documents mentions that Vermont & Massachusetts Railroad (V&M) is 98% owned by Boston & Maine Corporation. Who owns the remaining 2%? I can't seem to find that in the document, but in my defense it's almost 400 pages long and I'm not going to read the whole damned thing.
  by MEC407
 
Did anyone else notice that CSX is apparently buying not just the railroads but the entire Pan Am Systems? That would include Pan Am Brands, Pan Am Services, Perma Treat, Aroostook & Bangor Resources, and whatever else is in there.

. . .

Question: the number $750 million gets thrown around a lot, and someone a few pages back used the number $800 million. What is the source(s) of these numbers? The prices are all redacted in the STB documents.
  by johnpbarlow
 
Interesting detail of proposed Hill Yard operations post acquisition (and note bullet ii. as well as plans for CSX to add a 2nd train pair through Ayer):
NS, CSX and G&W agree to establish a Static Yard Plan for all movements
to, from and through Ayer. NS, CSX and G&W agree that the terminal will
be operated on that plan.
i. “Significant Changes” to the Static Yard Plan would be subject to
approval by NS and CSX (to be implemented by G&W) for so long as NS
and CSX jointly own PAS.
1. “Significant Changes” would mean that any one of the
following train pair were impacted by more than 90 minutes:
NS Intermodal Trains, NS Automotive Service, the Deerfield –
Ayer turn, CSX Overhead Train Pair 1, and CSX Overhead Train
Pair 2 and any other then-existing CSX overhead trains.
ii. After CSX divests itself of its 50% interest in PAS, PAS may make
changes in the Static Yard Plan provided such changes do not create
Significant Changes to any then-existing CSX overhead train pair.
And here are proposed Hill Yard upgrades:
CSX agrees to fund the construction of certain improvements in Ayer
Yard, as depicted on CSX Drawing MEA20201208 dated February 11,
2021, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Those
improvements will consist of the following:
i. Addition of the “Thoroughfare Storage Track”;
ii. Addition of the powered, heated, switches at the end of the NW wye
as shown in the drawing; and
iii. Reconfiguration of the northern throat of Ayer Yard in such a way
that accommodates 2 simultaneous moves of (1) inbound or
outbound trains through the north end (2) merchandise switching
and/or (3) Intermodal switching.
1. The plan as drawn would need to be modified to meet
this objective.
iv. Reconfiguration of the southern throat in such a way that the center
lead can serve either the intermodal tracks or the running track.
v. Addition of the Future Thoroughfare Track 1
  by NYC27
 
M
MEC407 wrote:One of the STB documents mentions that Vermont & Massachusetts Railroad (V&M) is 98% owned by Boston & Maine Corporation. Who owns the remaining 2%? I can't seem to find that in the document, but in my defense it's almost 400 pages long and I'm not going to read the whole damned thing.
Unknown....P&W had acquired V&M shares and used them as leverage, trading them to B&M/GTI to get the 3 miles from Barber to Worcester and the last mile of the Gardner Branch on the north end back in 1984. Bob Eder was a sneaky SOB. :P
  by Gilbert B Norman
 
Who knows if the SurfBoard will impose conditions on the merger that either party will find unacceptable and they simply "walk"?

The "un-merging", reported here by Mr. Barlow, of the "thought done deal" having the CN acquiring the Massena Line from Chessie, shows the Board "will have teeth" in the Biden Administration.

While I owe attribution to whomever reported an October closing date for the transaction, that's a long way off; and drawing on the Board's "Massena" actions, and nobody has heard a "neeeigh" from Topper (really, all he wants is to be able to run "one a day" over the B&A?) since the announcement, this may not yet be a done deal.

Meantime, I continue to monitor the sites, and my Daily print editions, of The Times and Journal for any reportage of this still proposed transaction, with negative results.
  by NYC27
 
Gilbert B Norman wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 9:29 am and nobody has heard a "neeeigh" from Topper (really, all he wants is to be able to run "one a day" over the B&A?)
Gil, did you read the filings? There is a CSX-NS settlement agreement. They aren’t asking for anything else. The rights on the B&A will save them maybe $150 million in clearance work on PAS/BERK and they can buy out CSX any time they want. Those are big concessions.

The thoroughbred you remember is now an old nag and is just trying to avoid the glue factory. VTR is the only outstanding issue and won’t get anything that would derail this deal.
  by Shortline614
 
Some interesting language from the Ayer Yard Plan.
ii. After CSX divests itself of its 50% interest in PAS, PAS may make
changes in the Static Yard Plan provided such changes do not create
Significant Changes to any then-existing CSX overhead train pair.
After? I know it's half a sentence, but if CSX wanted to retain ownership in PAS, wouldn't they say "If CSX" rather than "After CSX?"
  by bostontrainguy
 
johnpbarlow wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 8:31 am
Therefore I'm guessing NS' Davisville auto traffic will continue to be interchanged with P&W at Gardner.
Any advantage running through to Deerfield and interchanging there instead? Just eliminate Gardner all together?
  by johnpbarlow
 
I think running an East Deerfield - Worcester run through turn operation would certainly save transit time, eliminating the need to have 2 PAS trains and P&W turn jostle cuts of cars around in a yard built on a grade. And I'd like to think that for B&E as GWRR operation and P&W as a GWRR-owned operation interchange would be a simple billing transaction - I'm not sure a single crew could be used though.
  by jamoldover
 
bostontrainguy wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 9:52 am Any advantage running through to Deerfield and interchanging there instead? Just eliminate Gardner all together?
Actually, there's an even simpler way to do it - if they coordinate with the P&W, NS can drop the autorack cars at New Bond St/Barbers, move the FRED, and head north. The P&W could follow them up to get the cars (so that the main wasn't blocked), and head back south. No need to send a train from Ayer-Gardner or Worcester-Gardner... (or send the racks via the West End). Barbers is already an official interchange point.
Last edited by MEC407 on Sat Feb 27, 2021 10:55 am, edited 1 time in total. Reason: excessive quoting
  by johnpbarlow
 
The 2 excerpts below pulled from the CSX filing for PAR acquisition suggest to me that carloads moving west of Ayer on PAS might decline in the long run with the traffic migrating to a CSX Boston line routing (perhaps impacting traditional NS carload traffic to/from Ayer shipper).
CSX agrees to interchange traffic to/from Ayer Industry Locations (as defined in the Ayer
Switching Agreement), via Rotterdam for a transitional period from the date CSX consummates the Transaction (“Rotterdam commitment”), except to and from the following origin/terminating states and district: Florida, Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, the District of Columbia, Maryland, and, to the extent that the traffic originates or terminates on a CSX local station only, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts (the “Excepted States”). CSX may route via a PAS gateway other than Ayer any traffic originating or terminating in Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts which does not originate or terminate at a CSX local station (“Non-local commitment”).
and
The Related Transactions provide further pro-competitive benefits for shippers at Ayer. The agreement provides new switching rights for CSXT to serve customers in Ayer that were not previously available to CSXT shippers. Previously, PAR Systems lacked the right to switch traffic that was to or from the south of Ayer (i.e., off CSXT at Barber). The Related Agreements will provide new competitive access for shippers at Ayer to the integrated CSXT road for traffic served by the existing CSXT mainline
  by Gilbert B Norman
 
NYC27 wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 9:43 am.
The thoroughbred you remember is now an old nag and is just trying to avoid the glue factory.
OK, Mr. New England States, I get it. You love cats :P , and I was hugging, because I loved him, my horse for two weeks at a dude ranch as a 15yo kid. Today, I love dogs; I'd have one if I could, but I can't at my age.

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.
  • 1
  • 129
  • 130
  • 131
  • 132
  • 133
  • 161